A Year of Labour

Better Britain's look at what changed, what's working or what isn't, and what comes next.

Introduction

Better Britain's 'Year of Labour' report looks at what the Labour government has done since the July 2024 election and what it means for Britain. We aim to be clear, fair and pragmatic. The focus is on real policies and delivery, as they ran and won on a 'change' platform, so we wanted to evaluate that as reasonably as we can.

Each policy is written up in a short, readable format with a score from −2 to +2. The score is a simple way to show whether early signs are positive, negative or unclear. It can change as new evidence arrives. Claims provide citation links to sources.

Aside from specific policy reviews, we have a general section for errors and oversights, as even without directly affecting policy, optics or related issues can have knock-on effects on confidence and follow-through.

Scores Summary

Policy group	Score
Energy, Climate and Nuclear	+1.19 from 16 policies
Water and Environmental Regulation	+1.00 from 8 policies
Housing and Planning System	+0.67 from 15 policies
NHS and Social Care Delivery	+0.86 from 14 policies
Welfare and Inequality	+0.50 from 10 policies
Education and Skills	+0.91 from 11 policies
Migration, Borders and Asylum	+0.45 from 11 policies
Digital, Data and AI	+1.22 from 9 policies
Devolution, Local Growth and Transport	+1.25 from 8 policies
Business Environment and Labour Market	+0.82 from 11 policies
Justice, Policing and Prisons	+0.17 from 12 policies
Foreign, Defence and Security	+0.69 from 13 policies
Culture, Sport and Other Sectors	+0.64 from 14 policies
Cross-Cutting Systems and Trade-offs	+1.00 from 14 policies
Missed Opportunities, Errors and Governance	-1.20 from 10 events

Overall Score

+0.69

Policies: 176 Total score: 121

Each policy is scored from −2 (harmful) to +2 (very positive).

Policies only

Ignore drama, personal decisions or media/public outrage not linked to policies/change.

...but Keir Starmer

I just don't like Keir Starmer

Here's our dashboard of what Labour screwed up if you just want an endless scroll to get angry at.

Latest update (13 Feb 2026)

This report was last updated to 13 February 2026.

In this refresh we added and updated big-ticket items like: clean energy delivery (early Great British Energy roll‑out, new community energy funding, renewables auction results, and the push to speed up grid connections), the government’s direction on water reform, major housing and planning changes (including renters’ rights and planning reforms), new workplace rights and enforcement plans, migration and asylum changes, justice (sentencing reform), and digital rules (digital ID standards and Online Safety enforcement). We also updated the wider “money and rules” backdrop — the Budget and Finance Bill, plus the UK’s planned carbon border tax — and a small number of governance/media events where they could affect delivery.

Labour's score took a small hit (0.72 to 0.69), mainly from drama (lots more resignations). New policies in general have longer horizons, but a few early policies suggest slow progress.

Why this matters

This report was prepared as a reaction to the general level of 'discourse', both online and offline, mainly on the basis that the previous era’s "ever‑crisis" governing style may have shaped not just how we read the news, but how the news is written in the first place. Headlines do not always reflect what is really happening, so we tried to look beyond them to the real underlying policies.

If you want to understand how we score and tag items, see Approach. To dive into the policies, see the policy catalogue. The report includes a brief Conclusion, Glossary and Known Issues.

Approach

We gathered as many Labour policies and meaningful non‑policy events as we could find since the 2024 general election. Most formal programmes and legislation, plus events and outcomes linked to government decisions, delivery choices or public comms.

The research was organised into policy groups. For each policy or incident, we produced a short policy card entry with a consistent set of fields: the intent(s), the main mechanisms, key claims and evidence, costs and funding, distributional effects, risks and constraints, a brief timeline, and an outcome score.

If you spot something we should correct or expand, please open an issue or pull request on the GitHub repository.

Scoring process

Every card has an outcome score on a simple five‑point scale from −2 to +2. The score is a subjective estimate of the balance of likely benefits and harms. It is not a prediction and it can change over time.

+2 - strong/clear positive outcomes, present or very likely.
+1 - modest positive outcomes or progress, sometimes with caveats.
0 - unclear or balanced impacts, or too early to tell.
−1 - modest negative outcomes or notable risks outweighing benefits.
−2 - serious negative outcomes or high‑risk decisions/costs with little offsetting value.

All scores remain open to revision as new evidence arrives or different perspectives are offered.

Scoring consistency

A broader range of scores was considered, and would express more nuance in complex issues, but assigning a subjective score to every policy means we make decisions about which influences/outcomes are more important than others. A narrow range keeps the system simple and clear.

A weighted approach was also considered (is nuclear energy capacity more or less important than consistent building regulations around single-sex spaces?), but that very quickly shows limitations, and enhances bias. We're not trying to make any one perspective more important than any other, but to consider the overall effects of decisions made and the plans laid out.

We also considered testing policy performance against Conservative policies of the last few years (with post-COVID as the primary timespan), but the noise level in reporting was WAY too high, it just didn't have enough comparable policy to bother.

Our scoring is intended to be seen as comparable to better or worse governance outcomes, reducing the overall potential range lets us define how broad this scale could be. Practically, our scale runs from "the worst any government could be expected to do" to "the best any government could be expected to do".

Taxonomy and tags

To make the content filterable and to keep the write‑ups short, we use a small set of tags. Expand for details.

Impact quality describes how confident we are in a claim:

✅ [impact-proven] is supported by direct evidence, delivered outputs or robust evaluation.
↗ [impact-likely] has strong rationale and early indicators but needs time to confirm.
◇ [impact-hypothetical] is a plausible mechanism with little or no current evidence.
？ [unknown] flags a material uncertainty or missing data.
💬 [opinion] marks a clearly interpretive statement.

Areas of effect help group by domain. Common examples include: ⚡ [area: energy], 💧 [area: water], 🏠 [area: housing], 🗺 [area: planning], 🏥 [area: nhs], 🧑‍⚕️ [area: social-care], 👪 [area: welfare], 🎓 [area: education], 🧰 [area: skills], 🛂 [area: migration], ⚖ [area: justice], £ [area: economy], 🧾 [area: fiscal], 🏛 [area: devolution], 💻 [area: digital], 🤖 [area: ai], 🌿 [area: environment], 🏢 [area: business], 👷 [area: labour-market], 🚆 [area: transport], 🎭 [area: culture], 🌍 [area: foreign], 🛡 [area: defence].

Time horizons describe when effects should become visible: ⏱ [horizon: short] (under 1 year), ⏳ [horizon: medium] (1–3 years), and 🕰 [horizon: long] (over 3 years).

Distributional tags highlight who is most affected. For example: 💷 [dist: low-income], 👵 [dist: pensioners], 🔑 [dist: renters], 🏡 [dist: homeowners], 🏪 [dist: SMEs], 🏢 [dist: large-firms], and regional tags like 📍 [dist: regions:Greater Manchester].

Risk and uncertainty tags call out the main constraints. We use ⚖ [risk: legal], 🏗 [risk: delivery], £ [risk: finance], 🏛 [risk: political] and 📊 [risk: data-gap] to signpost what might go wrong or what we do not yet know.

Cards also have a small “meta line” under the title. Common tags there include: ✅ [status: enacted] / 🛠 [status: programme], 🏛 [lead: department/body], 📅 [start: YYYY-MM], and (again) the time horizon tags above.

Citations and references

We use inline footnotes for every material claim: [^id]. The page renderer pulls all citations together so all evidenced claims should have links that inform the claim. You can toggle on/off the full titles of those links here.

Style and voice

We aim for clarity over jargon, short paragraphs over dense blocks, and concrete examples over abstract claims. We focus on people and outcomes. See the Writing Voice & Style guide for more detail on tone and presentation.

Roadmap and open questions

Two near‑term improvements are on the list.

Ratings will be adjusted over time, and while updates will be limited (maybe quarterly), this report will develop into an ongoing 'report card' for Labour's government over time.
- The next update will probably start by renaming the report
Filtering/sorting based on tags of various types might be useful.
- Policy cards take up a lot of the viewport, maybe field-toggles and a table view will help
The citation toggle should be easier to use during scroll

2.0 — Conclusions

Looking mainly at policy, the Labour government's first year looks pretty healthy, with caveats. Some removals of bad policies from the previous government, some inherited programmes carried over the line, lots of sensible new programmes, and some optimism on the longer horizons. Finally, a national wealth fund that has the 'promise' of adding strong income entries to the budget and a realistic plan for net-zero, that also strengthens national security. Welfare is clearly struggling, where longer term changes may be better brought forward, and leaning on the 'black hole' in the finances has 'felt' like an old line for a while already, even if there's some justification for it.

Minor optics drama and limited scandals compared to the previous government, but cases can be made from either position for many controversial decisions. Better decisions could have been made generally, especially on order of events, cancelling welfare systems before better schemes were in place, or making statements that were then rolled back because of pressure. Impact: hypothetical U-turns are bad for stability, but generally good for outcomes, even if it puts some artificial limits on other options. There's also debate to be had on the limitations of current fiscal policy, but some legislative steps (and more to be expected) can mitigate some of the harm of those restrictions.

Better Britain would like to see clearer communication, especially on more complex or long-term policies, and more cohesion to keep drama from turning into yet more PR crises. This government often chooses to drop problematic individuals, perhaps out of a fear of optics, while they have a pretty strong policy base to build on and should be championing it openly instead of chasing the news cycle and responding to drama with reshuffles that risk overturning the cart. There's more research to be done on press coverage and public opinion, but this Better Britain Bureau policy-review concludes: 'Not that bad', C+.

The complete set of policies considered follows...

2.1 — Energy, Climate and Nuclear

Scope: Great British Energy (GBE); faster renewables; grid reform; cleaner homes; integrated nuclear and small modular reactors (SMRs).

Great British Energy (GBE)

Status: enacted Lead: DESNZ/GBE Start: 2025-05 Horizon: long

Intent (plain language): Create a publicly owned clean‑power developer to speed up building strategic projects and bring in private investment.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation; a state‑owned company with an investment mandate; joint ventures (JVs); participation in Contracts for Difference (CfD) and partnerships.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: energy Horizon: short Company established with interim board/CEO; initial local solar programme launched.
Impact: proven Area: energy Horizon: short Early public‑estate delivery: solar rollout announced for NHS sites to cut bills (multi‑site programme with a published expansion path).
Impact: likely Area: energy Horizon: medium Pipeline identified, subject to final investment decisions (FIDs) and grid connection slots.
Unknown Grid connection timings and supply chain constraints.

Costs & funding: Initial capital envelope £8.3bn (public) to mobilise ~£30-60bn private; returns long-dated.

Distributional effects: Regional jobs in manufacturing/construction; community energy participation.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: finance Supply chain; planning and environmental consents; cost of capital.

Timeline & milestones: 2025: Royal Assent (RA) and stand‑up; 2025–26: first JV commitments; 2026+: scale‑up.

Outcome score: +2 — Structural enabler with early delivery steps.

Local Power Plan (Local/Community‑Owned Clean Energy)

Status: programme Lead: DESNZ/GBE Start: 2026-02 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Make it easier for communities and local areas to own and benefit from clean‑energy generation — and scale projects that are “small individually, big in aggregate”.

Mechanism(s): Up to £1bn in support; programme support to improve local/project capability; standardised delivery approaches and business models; coordination with grid/planning and national programmes.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: energy Horizon: medium Government frames the plan as a major scale-up of local/community energy, aiming to accelerate deployment and local participation.
Unknown Grid‑connection constraints and local delivery capacity could cap near‑term take‑up without parallel “system” reform.

Costs & funding: Up to £1bn (programme envelope), with final allocation and instruments determining value-for-money.

Distributional effects: Potentially higher local acceptance and a clearer “share of benefits” for host communities; impacts depend on governance and who can participate.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: equity Complex project finance and volunteer capacity; risk that better‑resourced areas capture disproportionate benefits unless access is designed in.

Timeline & milestones: Plan published Feb 2026; programme rollout and funding decisions staged through 2026+.

Outcome score: +1 — High‑potential local enabler if simplified and properly supported; impact depends on execution and grid access.

National Wealth Fund (energy-relevant)

Status: programme Lead: HMT/UKIB/NWF Start: 2024-11 Horizon: long

Intent (plain language): Public co‑investment to bring in private money for clean energy and supporting supply chains.

Mechanism(s): Capitalising the UK Infrastructure Bank (UKIB); equity and debt instruments; strategic forums with public investors.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: economy Horizon: short First commitments unlocked £1.8bn+ private in energy, electric vehicle (EV) and supply‑chain projects.
Impact: likely Area: energy Horizon: medium Target leverage to mobilise ~£70bn by decade.
Unknown Macro headwinds could reduce leverage multiples.

Costs & funding: £7–8bn public capital; revolving returns; long‑term fiscal neutrality uncertain.

Distributional effects: Regional manufacturing uplift; small and medium‑sized enterprise (SME) supply chains.

Risks & constraints: Risk: financeRisk: delivery Project risk; crowd-in effectiveness.

Timeline & milestones: 2024–25 establishment; rolling investments aligned to missions.

Outcome score: +1 — Helpful capital lever; success depends on pipeline quality.

Contracts for Difference AR6/AR7

Status: programme Lead: DESNZ/LCCC Start: 2024-09 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Secure low‑cost renewable capacity through competitive auctions across technologies.

Mechanism(s): Contracts for Difference (CfD) rounds; administrative strike prices; budget pots; supply‑chain plans.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: energy Horizon: short Allocation Round 6 (AR6) awarded ~9.6 GW across 131 projects, including offshore wind returning to auction.
Impact: proven Area: energy Horizon: medium Allocation Round 7 (AR7) awarded new capacity across offshore wind and “pot 1” technologies (including major solar and onshore wind additions), framed by government as a record auction round.
Unknown Global turbine pricing/financing costs could affect delivery schedules.

Costs & funding: Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC), levy‑funded; consumer impact expected to be a net benefit versus wholesale prices.

Distributional effects: Coastal/port jobs; local content effects.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: finance Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) capacity; planning and environmental consents; grid connections.

Timeline & milestones: AR6 2024 awards; AR7 opened 2025; results published 2026 Q1; build-out 2027–31 (typical).

Outcome score: +2 — Material capacity secured; watch delivery risk.

Onshore Wind & Solar Planning Reset

Status: administrative Lead: DLUHC/DESNZ Start: 2024-07 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Remove the de‑facto onshore wind ban; give significant weight to renewables in planning; enable repowering and rooftop projects.

Mechanism(s): National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) changes; Written Ministerial Statements (WMS); repowering guidance; expanded permitted development.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: energy Horizon: short First large English onshore applications submitted post-rule change.
Impact: likely Area: energy Horizon: medium 40+ taskforce actions to unblock onshore pipeline.
Unknown Local opposition litigation rates; LA capacity to process.

Costs & funding: Local authority (LA) resourcing and fee reforms; minimal Exchequer cost.

Distributional effects: Rural/urban communities; host benefits via community funds.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: delivery Judicial review (JR) risk; local planning authority (LPA) capacity.

Timeline & milestones: 2024 NPPF update; 2025 taskforce plan; rolling consents from 2025.

Outcome score: +1 — Policy reset with early movement; hinges on LPA capacity.

Solar Deployment Fast-Track

Status: administrative Lead: DESNZ/DLUHC/Planning Inspectorate Start: 2024-12 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Accelerate utility‑scale and rooftop solar via National Policy Statement (NPS) updates and clearer farmland tests.

Mechanism(s): Updated NPS; “significant weight” to renewables; clarified best and most versatile (BMV) land tests; expedited Development Consent Orders (DCOs).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: energy Horizon: short Multiple solar projects over 50 MW (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, NSIPs) approved or advanced in 2025 (~1.3 GW).
Impact: likely Area: energy Horizon: medium Tripling solar to ~45 GW by 2030 stated aim.
Unknown Grid‑constraint curtailment risks in high‑solar regions.

Costs & funding: Developer‑funded; minimal Exchequer impact.

Distributional effects: Rooftop savings for the public estate; rural land‑use shifts.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Supply chain; Risk: political local opposition.

Timeline & milestones: 2024–25 policy updates; rolling NSIP decisions 2025–27.

Outcome score: +2 — Clear acceleration with approvals rising.

Grid Connections Reform

Status: programme Lead: Ofgem/NGESO/DESNZ Start: 2024-11 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Cut the grid queue, enable earlier investment, and bring forward firm connection dates.

Mechanism(s): Queue‑management rules; Transmission Entry Capacity (TEC) amnesty; milestone-based gating to remove “zombie” projects; shift from first‑come/first‑served toward prioritising projects that are ready to build; strategic network planning.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: energy Horizon: short Queue clean-up removes dormant projects; earlier dates for shovel-ready schemes.
Impact: proven Area: energy Horizon: short Connections reform entered an operational phase with a reordered pipeline and clearer “deliverability” tests, aiming to prioritise build‑ready capacity.
Impact: likely Area: energy Horizon: medium Ofgem set out a major reform package to accelerate connections, including stronger requirements on network companies and changes to connection offers/processes.
Impact: proven Area: energy Horizon: short Reuters reported Ofgem approved a major electricity grid upgrade programme (capex/price-control narrative), with bill impacts framed as part of the trade-off for faster build-out.
Impact: likely Area: energy Horizon: medium Anticipatory investment widened to net-zero critical works.
Unknown Supply chain delivery of transmission reinforcements.

Costs & funding: Network charges; Ofgem RIIO price‑control settlements; consumer bill impacts monitored.

Distributional effects: Constraint relief for high‑renewable regions; industrial connections improved.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: legal Land rights; planning and environmental consents; OEM capacity.

Timeline & milestones: 2024–25 rule changes; Dec 2025–2026: new queue/process reforms phased in; 2025-12: major grid upgrade programme approved (reported); 2026+: major reinforcements online.

Outcome score: +2 — High‑impact enabler; execution risk remains.

Warm Homes Plan / Retrofit Schemes

Status: programme Lead: DESNZ/DLUHC Start: 2024-11 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Reduce bills and emissions via grants for insulation and low‑carbon heating; expand rooftop solar across the public estate.

Mechanism(s): Grant schemes; supplier obligations; local delivery partners; public‑sector decarbonisation.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: energy Horizon: short Initial grants issued; rooftop installs commenced across public estate.
Impact: likely Area: energy Horizon: medium EPC uplift pathways set; multi-year budget envelope.
Unknown Installer capacity and consumer take-up.

Costs & funding: Multi‑year £3.4bn envelope (indicative) plus the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS); value for money via standards.

Distributional effects: Larger benefits for low‑income and poorly insulated homes; regional retrofit jobs.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Skills and quality assurance (QA); Risk: finance household co‑pay barriers.

Timeline & milestones: 2024–25 launch; 2025–28 scale-up phases.

Outcome score: +1 — Solid starts; capacity bottlenecks to watch.

Clean Power by 2030 Action Plan

Status: programme Lead: DESNZ Start: 2025-03 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Deliver about 95% clean electricity by 2030 through a mix of renewables, nuclear, carbon capture and storage (CCS), and system reforms.

Mechanism(s): Sector targets; planning and National Policy Statement (NPS) updates; market reforms; incentives for flexibility and storage.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: energy Horizon: medium Tripling solar, doubling onshore; offshore pipeline revived.
Impact: likely Area: energy Horizon: medium Flexibility build (storage/demand response) identified as critical.
Unknown Weather variability and delivery risk.

Costs & funding: Mix of public, regulatory and market support; consumer impact depends on wholesale prices and capital expenditure (CapEx).

Distributional effects: Broad national benefits; investment clusters in coastal/industrial regions.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: finance Build rates; grid; planning capacity.

Timeline & milestones: Annual progress statements; 2026 interim targets; 2030 endpoint.

Outcome score: +1 — Coherent plan; delivery is the challenge.

Nuclear Programme (Fleet)

Status: programme Lead: DESNZ/GBE-N Start: 2024-12 Horizon: long

Intent (plain language): Expand firm low‑carbon capacity via large reactors and a small modular reactor (SMR) fleet; improve energy security and jobs.

Mechanism(s): Programme governance; financing models such as the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) and public equity; streamlined planning; supply‑chain strategy.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: energy Horizon: long Sizewell C FID; Hinkley C construction progress.
Impact: likely Area: energy Horizon: long SMR competition outcome and siting work under way.
Unknown Financing terms and workforce capacity.

Costs & funding: Multi-decadal £ tens of billions across projects; mixed public/private financing.

Distributional effects: High-skilled jobs; UK content targets.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: financeRisk: legal Cost overruns; vendor risk; judicial review (JR) risk.

Timeline & milestones: 2024–26: final investment decisions (FIDs) and licensing; 2027–35: construction and commissioning cadence.

Outcome score: +2 — Strategic capacity with long lead times.

SMR Programme (Rolls-Royce SMR)

Status: programme Lead: GBE-N/RR SMR Start: 2025-06 Horizon: long

Intent (plain language): Deploy domestic SMR technology to add firm capacity and anchor supply chains.

Mechanism(s): Preferred bidder selection; JV project company; Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) Generic Design Assessment (GDA); planning via Development Consent Order (DCO) route; factory siting.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: energy Horizon: long Preferred technology selected; site selection process launched.
Impact: likely Area: business Horizon: medium Factory/job creation in UK supply chain.
Unknown GDA/licensing pace; cost/weighted average cost of capital (WACC) outcomes; community consent.

Costs & funding: Public co‑funding around £2.5bn plus private; per‑unit capital expenditure (capex) to be determined.

Distributional effects: Regional industry uplift; apprenticeships.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: financeRisk: political Timelines, cost, local acceptance.

Timeline & milestones: 2025: tech/site work; 2026–28: GDA/DCO; ~2035 first power.

Outcome score: +1 — High potential; long path to delivery.

Large Reactors — Hinkley Point C / Sizewell C

Status: programme Lead: EDF/DESNZ Start: 2016/2024 Horizon: long

Intent (plain language): Deliver 6.4 GW of firm low‑carbon power and sustain the nuclear skills base.

Mechanism(s): Contracts for Difference (CfD) for Hinkley Point C (legacy); Regulated Asset Base (RAB) and public equity for Sizewell C; site‑specific Development Consent Orders (DCOs).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: energy Horizon: medium Hinkley Point C (HPC) is over 70% complete; Sizewell C (SZC) early works commenced.
Unknown Schedule/cost risk to COD dates; financing close milestones.

Costs & funding: Project capital expenditure (capex) of tens of billions; consumer/taxpayer exposure varies by model.

Distributional effects: Somerset/Suffolk jobs; national supply chain development.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: finance Delay and cost overrun risks; workforce bottlenecks.

Timeline & milestones: HPC Unit 1 commercial operation date (COD) target around 2027; SZC final investment decision (FID) in 2024; main civil works ramp‑up 2025–26.

Outcome score: +1 — Significant progress with megaproject risks.

UK ETS–EU ETS Linkage Talks

Status: programme Lead: HMT/DESNZ Start: 2025-05 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Explore linking the UK and EU Emissions Trading Systems (ETS) to stabilise prices and reduce friction for cross‑border industry.

Mechanism(s): Technical talks; a memorandum of understanding (MoU); alignment of monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) and registry rules.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: hypothetical Area: economy Horizon: medium Price stability and compliance cost reduction for UK industry.
Unknown Political timeline and scope of mutual recognition.

Costs & funding: Administrative; no major Exchequer cost.

Distributional effects: Energy-intensive industries benefit; consumer impact indirect.

Risks & constraints: Risk: politicalRisk: legal Treaty/sovereignty considerations.

Timeline & milestones: 2025 scoping; potential 2026 decision point.

Outcome score: 0 — Uncertain but potentially beneficial alignment.

Crown Estate Act (energy-relevant enabling)

Status: enacted Lead: HMT/Crown Estate Start: 2025-07 Horizon: long

Intent (plain language): Modernise Crown Estate governance and borrowing to support seabed leasing and partnerships, including with Great British Energy (GBE).

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation; reporting; partnership provisions.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: energy Horizon: medium Improves flexibility for offshore wind/leasing partnerships.

Costs & funding: N/A direct; enables investment.

Distributional effects: Offshore regions benefit; revenues to public purse.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legal Implementation details.

Timeline & milestones: 2025 RA; new reporting cycle.

Outcome score: +1 — Helpful enabler.

Product Regulation & Metrology Act (energy-relevant)

Status: enacted Lead: DBT/OPSS Start: 2025-07 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Modernise the product‑safety framework, including software and online marketplaces, to support safe roll‑out of low‑carbon technologies.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation; future statutory instruments (SIs) on electrical and cyber safety; marketplace obligations.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: digital Horizon: medium Enables stronger rules for connected energy devices and chargers.

Costs & funding: Compliance costs for producers/marketplaces; consumer benefits.

Distributional effects: Safety gains across households; a level playing field for compliant firms.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Scope and timing of secondary legislation.

Timeline & milestones: 2025 RA; staged SIs 2025–27.

Outcome score: +1 — Supportive regulatory hygiene.

Storms and Flood Response — Competence Narrative

Status: consideration Lead: DEFRA/Environment Agency/Local Resilience Forums Start: 2025-01 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): Repeated flooding sparked claims of piecemeal funding and slow delivery, fuelling competence concerns.

Mechanism(s): Emergency response; local resilience arrangements; capital programme scheduling.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Communities experienced recurring flood events; criticism of funding cadence.
Impact: likely Publishing a clear, funded pipeline and response standards would help.
Unknown Scale of extreme‑weather impacts this winter.

Costs & funding: Emergency and capital budgets; insurance and local costs.

Distributional effects: Disproportionate impacts on flood‑prone areas; property and wellbeing costs.

Risks & constraints: Risk: climate Extreme events; Risk: delivery project sequencing; Risk: finance budget headroom.

Timeline & milestones: Winter 2024/25 events; updated plans pre‑winter 2025/26.

Outcome score: 0 — Mostly inheritance, delivery and comms need to feel joined‑up for the public. Response policies/action needed.

2.2 — Water and Environmental Regulation

Scope: Cleaning up rivers and beaches; tougher regulation of water companies; investment, enforcement, and transparency.

Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 — Implementation

Status: enacted Lead: DEFRA/Ofwat/Environment Agency Start: 2025-05 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Give regulators sharper tools to stop sewage pollution and poor service, and to make company bosses personally accountable.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation; Ofwat directions; Environment Agency (EA) enforcement powers; bonus-ban powers for failing firms; civil penalty thresholds and automatic sanctions.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: water Horizon: short Executive bonuses have been banned at multiple worst-performing companies (including Thames and Yorkshire Water).
Impact: proven Area: environment Horizon: short Record penalties issued for spills and unlawful dividend practices (e.g., £122.7m for Thames Water).
Impact: likely Area: environment Horizon: medium Real-time monitoring and automatic fines are expected to cut routine sewage discharges.
Unknown The size of bill impacts from compliance costs depends on how efficiently companies deliver upgrades.

Costs & funding: Company-funded upgrades; fines and penalties ring-fenced for cleanup projects; hardship support to be protected in company plans.

Distributional effects: Cleaner rivers benefit all users; near-term bill pressure could hit low-income households unless social tariffs and support schemes are strengthened.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Complex engineering works; Risk: finance highly leveraged company balance sheets; Risk: legal potential challenges to penalties/bonus bans.

Timeline & milestones: Act in force 2025; bonus-ban directions summer 2025; updated company plans and new penalty schedule through 2025–26.

Outcome score: +2 — Stronger accountability with early visible enforcement; watch delivery and bill impacts.

Ofwat Price Review (PR24) — 2025–2030 Settlements

Status: enacted Lead: Ofwat Start: 2025-04 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Approve multi-year investment to modernise pipes and treatment works, while setting limits on bills and service standards across 2025–2030.

Mechanism(s): Regulatory price control (PR24): capital programmes, performance commitments (leakage, pollution), outcome delivery incentives (rewards/penalties).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: environment Horizon: medium Around £104 billion across 2025–30 for upgrades, including storm-overflow storage and treatment capacity.
Impact: likely Area: water Horizon: medium Targets to reduce spills and leakage, backed by financial incentives and penalties.
Unknown Actual customer bill paths depend on company performance and financing costs.

Costs & funding: Company capex financed via shareholders and debt; bills set by Ofwat; penalties cannot be passed straight to customers.

Distributional effects: Regional variation in bills reflecting local investment needs; low-income support required (social tariffs, payment plans).

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Supply chain capacity and skilled labour; Risk: finance higher interest rates; Risk: political bill acceptability.

Timeline & milestones: Final determinations 2024/25; company business plans commence April 2025; annual performance reporting each summer.

Outcome score: +1 — Big step-up in investment with tougher targets; success hinges on on-time delivery and fair bill profiles.

Thames Water Crisis — Special Administration Preparedness

Status: consideration Lead: DEFRA/Ofwat/HMT Start: 2025-07 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): Government prepared for potential special administration while seeking a market‑led rescue, drawing criticism over fines “breathing space” and clarity.

Mechanism(s): Regulator oversight; insolvency/special administration tools; contingent planning.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Ministers stated no special treatment under rules; contingency work ongoing.
Impact: likely Clearer comms on consumer protection and polluter‑pays needed.
Unknown Final restructuring terms and customer bill impacts.

Costs & funding: Contingent liabilities; potential consumer impacts depending on outcome.

Distributional effects: Customers and regions served affected by service and bill path.

Risks & constraints: Risk: finance Balance‑sheet fragility; Risk: political fairness perceptions; Risk: delivery legal/insolvency timelines.

Timeline & milestones: Minister statements July–Sept 2025; restructuring decisions pending.

Outcome score: −1 — Necessary contingency, but messaging and outcomes matter.

Environment Agency Enforcement — Polluters Pay

Status: programme Lead: Environment Agency (EA)/DEFRA Start: 2025-04 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Scale up criminal and civil enforcement against serious polluters, and speed up penalties for repeated lower-level offences.

Mechanism(s): Expanded inspection teams; expedited civil sanctions; criminal prosecutions for serious and persistent breaches; cost recovery from offenders.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: environment Horizon: short More live criminal investigations at underperforming companies; rapid fixed penalties for minor, repeated breaches.
Impact: likely Area: water Horizon: short Transparent publication of incidents and enforcement outcomes increases deterrence.
Unknown Prosecution backlogs and court capacity could slow cases.

Costs & funding: Funded by DEFRA settlement; fine revenues directed to environmental improvements; polluter-pays cost recovery.

Distributional effects: Local communities near affected rivers get targeted cleanup projects; long-term health and recreation benefits.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legal Litigation risk from companies; Risk: delivery forensic evidence and lab capacity; Risk: political perceived inconsistency across regions.

Timeline & milestones: Enhanced enforcement guidance issued 2025; quarterly enforcement bulletins; annual progress review.

Outcome score: +1 — Visible enforcement ups the pressure; court throughput is the main constraint.

Redirecting Water Company Fines to Local-Led Restoration

Status: administrative Lead: DEFRA/Environment Agency Start: 2026-01 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Make pollution penalties feel more tangible locally by directing water-company fines and penalties into restoration projects led with local partners.

Mechanism(s): Ring-fencing and allocating fine/penalty revenues to eligible local restoration programmes (with delivery routes via agencies and local groups), alongside existing polluter‑pays enforcement.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: environment Horizon: short More visible local restoration could strengthen public trust that enforcement translates into improvements.
Unknown Whether revenues are additional to (or substitute for) baseline environmental budgets, and how consistently funds reach the worst‑affected catchments.

Costs & funding: Funded from penalties (variable year-to-year); administrative costs depend on scheme design and monitoring.

Distributional effects: Potentially benefits communities near the worst‑affected rivers and coasts; fairness depends on allocation rules and local capacity to bid/partner.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: governance Risk of fragmented projects without strong outcome measurement; risk of politicised allocation; risk of double-counting against company obligations.

Timeline & milestones: Policy announced Jan 2026; delivery mechanisms and first allocations staged through 2026.

Outcome score: +1 — Good accountability optics and potentially real local gains if allocation and measurement are robust.

Storm Overflow Reduction Programme — Monitoring & Targets

Status: programme Lead: Ofwat/EA/Water Companies Start: 2025-01 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Cut raw sewage spills into rivers and seas, with full monitoring, public transparency, and deadlines to halve spills by 2030.

Mechanism(s): Mandatory event duration monitors (EDMs) on all overflows; near-real-time publication; new storage and treatment capacity; performance targets with penalties.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: transparency Horizon: short Monitoring now covers almost all overflows, with public data feeds.
Impact: likely Area: environment Horizon: medium Storage, screening, and treatment upgrades reduce spill frequency and duration.
Unknown Extreme rainfall events could mask progress year-to-year; long time-series needed.

Costs & funding: Included within PR24 capex; penalties for missed targets cannot be recouped from customers.

Distributional effects: Cleaner bathing waters and amenity value for coastal and river communities; construction disruption near assets.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Gridlocked planning for large tanks/tunnels; Risk: finance contractor costs; Risk: legal permits and consents.

Timeline & milestones: 100% monitoring coverage targeted; interim spill reduction checkpoints 2027; at least 50% reduction by 2030.

Outcome score: +2 — Clear plan with transparency and penalties; delivery is hard but benefits are broad.

A New Vision for Water — White Paper and Reform Bill Direction

Status: programme Lead: DEFRA Start: 2026-01 Horizon: long

Intent (plain language): Overhaul how the water system is regulated and held accountable, so pollution reduction, investment delivery and customer service are governed as one coherent system.

Mechanism(s): White Paper setting out a reform programme and legislative direction (including a proposed single regulator approach), plus a future water reform bill to implement structural changes.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: governance Horizon: medium White Paper proposes a more unified regulatory model (including ending Ofwat’s current stand‑alone role) to reduce duplication and clarify accountability.
Unknown Whether structural reform improves outcomes without disrupting enforcement/investment during transition; timetable depends on legislation and institutional design.

Costs & funding: One-off transition costs for institutional change; potential medium-term efficiencies from shared data and joined-up enforcement/price control.

Distributional effects: If it improves service and reduces pollution, benefits are broad; transition risks (and any bill impacts) would be felt unevenly by region and by low-income households without adequate social tariffs.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: delivery Legislative time and design complexity; risk of scope creep; risk of losing specialist capabilities during reorganisation.

Timeline & milestones: White Paper published Jan 2026; next steps depend on consultation and bill timing.

Outcome score: +1 — High-leverage governance fix if executed cleanly; risk is transition disruption without clearer outcomes.

Unified Water Regulator — Proposal to Merge Functions

Status: programme Lead: DEFRA Start: 2025-07 Horizon: long

Intent (plain language): End the “blame game” between agencies by creating a single, accountable regulator for water quality, customer service, and investment.

Mechanism(s): Policy proposal for legislation: bring together Ofwat (economic regulator), the Environment Agency’s water functions (environmental enforcement), Natural England (ecology advice), and the Drinking Water Inspectorate (safety), into one body.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: governance Horizon: medium One regulator reduces duplication and speeds decisions; clearer accountability for outcomes.
Impact: likely Area: governance Horizon: medium The 2026 White Paper reinforces the direction of travel toward a single-regulator model and a formal water reform bill.
Unknown Transition costs, staffing transfers, and statutory powers until legislation passes.

Costs & funding: One-off transition costs; expected efficiencies from shared data and enforcement teams; funding model to be set in the bill.

Distributional effects: Simpler contact point for customers and local groups; potential short-term disruption during merger.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legal Legislative time; Risk: delivery moving staff and systems; Risk: political scope creep and independence concerns.

Timeline & milestones: Consultation and development work 2025; White Paper Jan 2026 sets direction; draft bill preparation and staged transition after Royal Assent.

Outcome score: +1 — Governance fix with promise, but depends on a good bill and careful transition.

2.3 — Housing and Planning System

Scope: Housing targets; planning reform; brownfield/“grey-belt”; developer market structure.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) — Targets, Presumption and “Grey‑belt”

Status: programme Lead: DLUHC Start: 2024-07 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Restore a clear national push to build more homes by bringing back local targets, tightening the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, and allowing limited use of poor‑quality Green Belt (“grey‑belt”) land where it unlocks housing near jobs and transport.

Mechanism(s): Revised national policy (NPPF) and ministerial directions to planning inspectors; updated guidance to local plans and five‑year land supply tests.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: housing Horizon: medium Restoring targets is expected to raise permissions toward the level needed for 300k/yr builds.
Impact: hypothetical Area: housing Limited “grey‑belt” use can add well‑located capacity with lower environmental harm if paired with design codes.
Unknown Delivery depends on local plan adoption rates and inspector capacity.

Costs & funding: Minimal central cost; council plan‑making and inspection time increase.

Distributional effects: Most impact in high‑demand city‑regions; potential affordability gains for renters and first‑time buyers.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: political Local opposition; judicial review risk; infrastructure and water constraints in hotspots.

Timeline & milestones: Draft NPPF issued 2024–25; examination guidance updated; local plans to align over 2025–27.

Outcome score: +1 — Directionally pro‑build; reliant on local plan throughput and inspectorate capacity.

Urban Density & Brownfield Accelerator

Status: programme Lead: DLUHC/HMT Start: 2024-10 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Build more homes where people want to live by allowing mid‑rise apartment blocks near stations and reusing brownfield (previously developed) land, with design rules to fit local character.

Mechanism(s): Updated permitted development rights; local design codes; targeted grants for remediation and infrastructure; mayoral brownfield funds.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: housing Planning tweaks + site‑prep grants increase feasible brownfield supply.
Impact: hypothetical Area: transport Higher density near public transport supports lower car use.
Unknown Viability in weak markets without deeper grants.

Costs & funding: Capital grants for remediation; local infrastructure support (schools, GP capacity).

Distributional effects: Benefits urban renters/buyers; can reduce greenfield pressure.

Risks & constraints: Risk: financeRisk: delivery Remediation costs; utilities upgrades; local capacity.

Timeline & milestones: 2025 call for sites; rolling approvals 2025–27; completions ramp through late 2020s.

Outcome score: +1 — Realistic, but depends on remediation and utilities funding.

Housing Delivery Finance & Government Guarantees

Status: programme Lead: HMT/DLUHC/UKIB Start: 2024-11 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Unlock stalled schemes with guarantees, low‑cost finance, and partnerships so builders and housing associations can start projects during a tough financing cycle.

Mechanism(s): UK Infrastructure Bank lending; government guarantees; revolving housing funds; partnership with local authorities and Homes England.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: housing Lower finance costs revive marginal sites and accelerate build‑out.
Impact: hypothetical Area: economy Construction activity supports jobs and local supply chains.
Unknown Take‑up pace given developer balance sheets and sales risk.

Costs & funding: Contingent liabilities + interest subsidy; designed to recycle as loans are repaid.

Distributional effects: More affordable and mixed‑tenure homes; potential first‑time buyer gains.

Risks & constraints: Risk: finance Market downturn risk; moral hazard on site selection.

Timeline & milestones: Facility windows open 2025; first projects reach start on site 2025–26.

Outcome score: +1 — Strong lever in weak markets if targeted well.

Housing Delivery Sequencing — Slow Starts despite Planning Reset

Status: consideration Lead: DLUHC/HMT Start: 2024-07 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): Planning rules and finance levers were updated, but permissions and completions still lag in the first year, suggesting sequencing and capacity gaps. (Links: 2.3 Housing; 2.1 Grid & planning; 2.14 Planning Acceleration.)

Mechanism(s): NPPF reset, fees/capacity, brownfield support; guarantees via UKIB.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Permissions and completions fell year‑on‑year in 2024/25; inspectorate and council capacity tight.
Impact: likely Faster utilities and grid approvals would unlock constrained sites earlier.
Unknown Net effect of developer consolidation on build‑out speed.

Costs & funding: Mainly opportunity cost of delayed output; modest central costs to lift capacity faster.

Distributional effects: Renters and buyers face longer shortages; regional gaps widen without targeted action.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery planning/inspector capacity; Risk: finance developer balance sheets; Risk: utilities grid/water dependencies.

Timeline & milestones: 2025 capacity hires; utilities fast‑track alignment; mid‑2026 progress check.

Outcome score: −1 — Direction is right, but execution pace in year one fell short of ambition.

Status: administrative Lead: DLUHC/Homes England Start: 2026-01 Horizon: long

Intent (plain language): Increase the delivery and quality of social and affordable housing over a multi‑year programme, and publish progress against the plan.

Mechanism(s): Progress update reporting on programme actions, funding/delivery levers, and next steps for pipeline and delivery partners (including local authorities and housing associations).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: housing Horizon: long A sustained programme for social/affordable supply can reduce homelessness pressure and improve affordability where private rents dominate.
Unknown Pace of starts/completions and regional distribution until delivery metrics and funding decisions are clearly tracked in the dataset.

Costs & funding: Depends on grant rates, borrowing capacity and fiscal headroom; delivery also constrained by land, construction inflation and labour.

Distributional effects: Benefits lower-income households and those in temporary accommodation; local impacts depend on where supply is added and tenure mix.

Risks & constraints: Risk: financeRisk: delivery Funding volatility and build-cost inflation; planning delays and utilities constraints; capacity in councils and housing associations.

Timeline & milestones: Progress update published Jan 2026; further milestones depend on funding rounds, land release and construction pipeline.

Outcome score: +1 — High social value if sustained; outcomes depend on funding stability and delivery capacity.

Planning System Capacity & Performance (fees, staffing, delegation)

Status: programme Lead: DLUHC/Planning Inspectorate Start: 2024-09 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Speed up decisions by letting councils recover more costs through fees, hire more planners, and let professional officers decide routine cases faster.

Mechanism(s): Fee regulations; inspectorate recruitment; performance standards; guidance to delegate minor applications to officers.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: housing More planners + clear service standards reduce average decision times.
Impact: hypothetical Area: business Predictability lowers carrying costs for SME builders.
Unknown Whether fee income fully covers pay/retention needs.

Costs & funding: Fee uplifts borne by applicants; central funding for inspectorate intake.

Distributional effects: Helps smaller builders who lack in‑house planning teams; better customer service for householders.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Recruitment pipeline; retention; training lag.

Timeline & milestones: 2025 fee SIs; recruitment cohorts through 2025–26; new metrics published quarterly.

Outcome score: +2 — Practical, near‑term throughput gains if hiring lands.

Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 — Consents and Delivery Acceleration

Status: enacted Lead: DLUHC/DESNZ Start: 2025-12 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Cut planning and infrastructure delays by hardwiring faster, clearer decisions for major projects and key enabling infrastructure.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation changing planning/consenting frameworks (including infrastructure-relevant provisions), with secondary legislation and guidance needed for full effect.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: housing Horizon: medium Faster decisions for enabling infrastructure (power, water, transport) should reduce “site blocked by utilities/consents” delays for large housing programmes.
Unknown Net speed-up depends on resourcing in planning authorities/inspectorate and on how quickly secondary rules take effect.

Costs & funding: Primarily administrative; resourcing requirements may fall on planning bodies and delivery agencies.

Distributional effects: Benefits accrue in high-growth corridors if infrastructure bottlenecks ease; local disruption and perceived fairness remain constraints.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: legal Judicial review risk; local opposition; risk of shifting bottlenecks from decision-making to construction supply chains.

Timeline & milestones: Royal Assent Dec 2025; staged commencement and follow-on rules through 2026+.

Outcome score: +1 — High-leverage accelerator if implementation is resourced and sequenced well.

Infrastructure Contributions Reform (Infrastructure Levy / Section 106)

Status: programme Lead: DLUHC Start: 2024-12 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Make developer contributions simpler and harder to game so communities reliably get affordable homes, schools and transport from new sites.

Mechanism(s): Secondary legislation and pilots to replace/streamline some Section 106 deals with a rules‑based Infrastructure Levy set locally.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: hypothetical Area: housing A simpler levy can reduce wrangling and deliver more on‑site affordable homes.
Unknown Revenue stability in down markets; transition path for live applications.

Costs & funding: One‑off council setup; software and valuation support.

Distributional effects: More predictable community benefits; clearer asks for developers.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: finance Valuation disputes; viability on low‑margin sites.

Timeline & milestones: Pilots 2025–26; staged national rollout thereafter.

Outcome score: 0 — Potentially powerful, but details and phasing matter.

New Towns & Development Corporations

Status: programme Lead: DLUHC/Homes England Start: 2025-01 Horizon: long

Intent (plain language): Create well‑planned new communities with schools, clinics and transport from day one, using modern versions of New Towns powers.

Mechanism(s): Primary powers refreshed; development corporations; land value capture; partnership with combined authorities.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: hypothetical Area: housing Large‑scale sites can deliver thousands of homes with proper infrastructure.
Unknown Land assembly time; legal challenge risk; funding envelopes.

Costs & funding: Upfront public planning costs; private delivery over time; potential UKIB support.

Distributional effects: Family housing with services; regional development benefits.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: finance Compulsory purchase challenges; long payback.

Timeline & milestones: Prospectus 2025; first corporations designated 2026+; phased delivery to 2035.

Outcome score: +1 — Strategic capacity if land and funding align.

Housing‑Adjacent Infrastructure Fast‑Track (grid, water, transport)

Status: programme Lead: DESNZ/DfT/DLUHC Start: 2024-12 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Connect new homes faster by speeding up approvals for electricity grid upgrades, water treatment and local transport links that hold back building.

Mechanism(s): Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) reforms; statutory time limits; coordinated permits with environment agencies.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: housing Shorter grid/water timelines unblock sites, especially in growth corridors.
Unknown Delivery depends on utilities’ capex and regulator settlements.

Costs & funding: Regulated utility capex recovered over bills; targeted public co‑funding where needed.

Distributional effects: Benefits households in constrained regions by bringing forward supply; bill impacts to watch.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: finance Supply chain capacity; consenting complexity.

Timeline & milestones: NSIP reforms live 2025; DNO/ water company delivery plans aligned 2025–30.

Outcome score: +1 — Practical enabler tied to regulated investment cycles.

Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (Private Rented Sector reform)

Status: enacted Lead: DLUHC Start: 2025-10 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): End “no‑fault” evictions, raise standards, and give renters a simple route to resolve problems.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation and staged commencement: abolish Section 21; move to periodic tenancies; national landlord/property portal and ombudsman; notice and rent rise rules; with commencement regulations and phased implementation.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: housing Greater security reduces involuntary moves and homelessness risk.
Impact: likely Area: housing Roadmap sets phased implementation, with early tranches scheduled to take effect during 2026.
Unknown Possession court capacity remains a bottleneck without investment.

Costs & funding: Portal/ombudsman funded by fees; limited Exchequer spend.

Distributional effects: Benefits low‑income and family renters; predictable rules for responsible landlords.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: legal Case backlogs; transition for student lets and supported housing.

Timeline & milestones: Royal Assent Oct 2025; commencement regulations made Dec 2025; phased rollout through 2026 (including early tranches due from May 2026, if confirmed in the roadmap).

Outcome score: +1 — Clear tenant protection if courts are resourced.

National Plan to End Homelessness (England)

Status: programme Lead: DLUHC/Local Authorities Start: 2025-12 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Reduce and ultimately end homelessness by setting a national plan across prevention, temporary accommodation, and move-on into stable housing.

Mechanism(s): National plan setting expectations and policy direction for councils and partners (prevention, support services, and pathways into housing), with delivery dependent on funding and local capacity.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: housing Horizon: medium Better prevention and move-on pathways can reduce expensive temporary accommodation use and stabilise families.
Unknown Whether funding and housing supply are sufficient to deliver “end homelessness” ambitions on the plan’s timetable.

Costs & funding: Depends on support service funding, TA costs, and the availability of social/affordable supply; prevention can save money but requires upfront investment.

Distributional effects: Disproportionately benefits households facing eviction/unsafe housing and areas with high TA use; impacts vary by region and housing market.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: finance Limited affordable supply and long waits; council capacity; interaction with private-rented reforms and welfare rules.

Timeline & milestones: Plan published Dec 2025; delivery milestones and any funding settlements to be tracked in subsequent updates.

Outcome score: +1 — High-value aim, but success depends on supply, funding and local delivery capacity.

High Value Council Tax Surcharge (England, £2m+ homes)

Status: administrative Lead: DLUHC/HMT Start: 2025-11 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Raise additional revenue and signal fairness by applying an additional council tax charge to very high-value homes.

Mechanism(s): New surcharge design and implementation parameters published by government for eligible properties above a value threshold (with operational detail via council tax administration).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: fiscal Horizon: short Concentrates additional tax on a small share of the housing stock; yields depend on valuation approach and behavioural response.
Unknown Distributional and market effects (e.g., avoidance, revaluation disputes, or impacts on high-end transactions).

Costs & funding: Administrative implementation and valuation/appeals capacity; revenues depend on final design.

Distributional effects: More progressive property-tax incidence; may be geographically concentrated in London and certain high-value markets.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: delivery Valuation disputes and gaming; fairness perceptions; interaction with wider property tax reform debates.

Timeline & milestones: Policy paper published Nov 2025; implementation timing depends on secondary changes and local billing cycles.

Outcome score: 0 — Potentially progressive, but outcomes depend on design details and enforcement.

Developer Market Structure & Mergers (e.g., Barratt–Redrow)

Status: programme Lead: CMA/DLUHC Start: 2025-02 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Assess how mergers among large housebuilders affect competition, build‑out speed and consumer outcomes; tailor policy so smaller builders can compete.

Mechanism(s): Competition review; planning/land rules that open opportunities to SME builders; conditions on mergers if needed.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: hypothetical Area: housing More balanced market structure may raise output and customer service.
Unknown Net effect of consolidation on build‑out rates and product mix.

Costs & funding: Regulator and department analysis costs.

Distributional effects: Could widen choice and speed on mixed‑tenure sites if SME share grows.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legal Merger control timelines; evidence thresholds.

Timeline & milestones: Casework 2025; policy responses folded into planning/land release measures.

Outcome score: 0 — Benefits depend on specific undertakings and SME pipeline.

Environmental Constraints — Nutrient Neutrality and Water Availability

Status: programme Lead: DEFRA/DLUHC/EA/Ofwat Start: 2024-09 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Unblock sustainable housebuilding in protected river catchments by cutting pollution at source and providing off‑site mitigation, rather than halting homes.

Mechanism(s): Water company investment (2025–30 plans), nutrient credits/mitigation schemes, nature‑based solutions, planning guidance on appropriate assessments.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: environment Treatment upgrades and wetlands reduce nutrient loads over time.
Unknown Near‑term supply remains constrained until upgrades come online.

Costs & funding: Regulated capex recovered via bills; targeted public co‑funding for mitigation markets.

Distributional effects: Unlocks sites while protecting rivers; bill impacts should be monitored.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: legal Habitats assessment risk; delivery schedule of water firms.

Timeline & milestones: 2025–30 water industry plans; local mitigation markets scaling 2025–27.

Outcome score: 0 — Necessary enabler; timelines tight relative to housing targets.

2.5 — Welfare and Inequality

Scope: Family incomes; poverty drivers; in-kind supports.

Two-Child Limit in Family Benefits — retained, with repeal bill introduced

Status: administrative+bill-in-train Lead: DWP/HMT Start: 2017; update 2026-01 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Maintain the existing rule that limits support to the first two children in most low‑income families (as a cost‑control measure), while also putting a removal proposal into Parliament that would end the cap if it passes.

Mechanism(s): Rule remains in Child Tax Credit and the child elements of Universal Credit; a bill has been introduced to repeal/modify the two‑child limit within Universal Credit (with operational detail depending on commencement rules and any transitional arrangements).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: welfare Horizon: short Around 1.6–1.7 million children are in families affected, raising measured child poverty particularly for larger families.
Impact: proven Area: welfare Horizon: short Retention prevents large upfront Exchequer cost but deepens poverty for affected households.
Impact: likely Area: welfare Horizon: medium A bill to remove the two‑child limit has been introduced, but the rule remains in force unless and until legislation passes.

Costs & funding: Retention avoids several £ billions of additional annual spend relative to repeal; removing the limit would create a material recurring fiscal cost (subject to final scope and commencement).

Distributional effects: Concentrated losses for low‑income families with three or more children; strongest poverty impact in some regions and minority communities.

Risks & constraints: Risk: financeRisk: political Fiscal headroom trade‑offs; sustained criticism from anti‑poverty groups; Risk: data-gap need for up‑to‑date cohort impact estimates and clarity on transitional/backdating decisions if repeal proceeds.

Timeline & milestones: Maintained through 2024–25; repeal bill introduced Jan 2026; timing depends on parliamentary passage and commencement.

Outcome score: 1 — Two‑child limit repeal is at least on a legislative track.

Universal Credit (Adjustment) Act — Base Rate Up, Health Element Rebalanced

Status: enacted Lead: HMT/DWP Start: 2025-03 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Raise the basic Universal Credit amount for everyone, while changing the extra disability‑related top‑up for new claims to focus higher support on those with the most severe, long‑term conditions.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation; commencement from April 2026 for new health‑related claims; transitional protections for existing claimants with severe or lifelong conditions.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: welfare Horizon: short Basic UC standard allowance increased above previous path.
Impact: likely Area: welfare Horizon: medium New health element around half the previous rate for most new claims, with protections for the severest cases.
Unknown Employment effects for people with fluctuating conditions; monitoring required.

Costs & funding: Net savings by 2029–30 versus previous policy due to health element changes; part‑recycled into employment support offers.

Distributional effects: Many without disabilities gain from higher base rate; future new disabled claimants with moderate needs receive less than before; those with the highest needs protected.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Complexity of assessments and transitions; Risk: political perceived cuts for some new claimants.

Timeline & milestones: Royal Assent 2025; April 2026 start for new health‑related claims; independent PIP review to inform future alignment.

Outcome score: 0 — Balanced: higher base support vs reduced future top‑ups for some disabled newcomers.

Personal Independence Payment (PIP) — Reform Paused and Independent Review

Status: programme Lead: DWP Start: 2025-07 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Pause proposed changes to PIP after late‑stage concessions to avoid defeat, and commission an independent review to improve assessments and support for disabled people.

Mechanism(s): Removal of a contentious eligibility clause from the bill; commissioning of an independent review; continued backlog management and scheduled reassessments; government response to follow.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: welfare Horizon: short Concessions secured passage; existing PIP claimants are protected from immediate changes.
Impact: likely Area: welfare Horizon: medium The review is expected to recommend improvements to assessments and support.
Unknown Final shape, timing and fiscal impacts of any future reform.

Costs & funding: Neutral in 2025–26 versus the prior proposal; future costs depend on review outcomes and subsequent legislation.

Distributional effects: Certainty for current claimants; uncertainty for prospective/new claimants until the review concludes and the government responds.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political Managing expectations across disability groups and fiscal constraints; Risk: delivery assessment capacity and appeals handling.

Timeline & milestones: July 2025 concessions; review commissioned in 2025; government response due in 2026.

Outcome score: -1 — Right call to avoid defeat; impact depends on the review and follow‑through. Scored down primarily for upset, rather than outcomes.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025

Status: enacted Lead: Cabinet Office/DWP/HMRC Start: 2025-12 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Strengthen how public bodies prevent, detect and recover fraud and error involving public money, while setting out safeguards for legitimate claimants.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation extending recovery and information-gathering powers across public authorities (with operational impact depending on codes of practice, data-sharing arrangements and oversight).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: welfare Horizon: medium Stronger recovery powers may increase overpayment recovery and deterrence, reducing losses to the Exchequer.
Unknown Risks of incorrect recovery and administrative burden for vulnerable households unless safeguards and appeal routes are strong.

Costs & funding: Implementation and compliance costs for departments; expected savings depend on fraud/error baseline and enforcement effectiveness.

Distributional effects: Potentially higher pressure on low‑income households if recovery is aggressive; benefits from reduced fraud accrue broadly via fiscal sustainability.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: rights Data-quality issues; wrongful recovery; public trust impacts; need for clear oversight.

Timeline & milestones: Royal Assent Dec 2025; secondary guidance/codes and staged implementation through 2026.

Outcome score: 0 — Valuable integrity tool if safeguards are robust; risk is harm from errors and heavy-handed recovery.

Universal Credit Administration — Debt Deductions and Reassessments

Status: administrative Lead: DWP Start: 2025-04 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Make Universal Credit debt deductions gentler and restart more regular benefit reassessments to keep awards up to date.

Mechanism(s): Guidance and regulations: cap most automatic deductions from benefits (e.g., repayments) to a lower weekly amount; target reassessments where conditions may change; expand work‑coach support.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: welfare Horizon: short Lower deduction caps leave more cash each month for hundreds of thousands of households.
Impact: likely Area: labour-market Horizon: medium More timely reassessments reduce error and support return‑to‑work where possible.
Unknown Operational capacity for reassessments; appeals volume.

Costs & funding: Small near‑term Exchequer cost from slower debt recovery; potential savings from reduced overpayment and better targeting.

Distributional effects: Helps the lowest‑income UC claimants who were experiencing high deductions; improves accuracy across the caseload.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Backlogs; Risk: legal appeal risk on reassessment outcomes.

Timeline & milestones: Cap implemented April 2025; phased reassessment restart through 2025–26.

Outcome score: +1 — Practical cash‑flow relief with manageable delivery risks.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill (introduced)

Status: bill-in-train Lead: HMT/HMRC Start: 2025-12 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Change the rules governing employer National Insurance contributions in relation to workplace pension contributions (exact effect depends on the bill’s final provisions).

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation via a Finance-style bill route, with HMRC implementation and employer payroll system changes as required.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: economy Horizon: short Any increase in employer NIC costs could be passed through via wages, hiring, or pension contribution decisions.
Unknown Distributional impacts across sectors and firm sizes until the bill text and costings are fully assessed in the dataset.

Costs & funding: Employer compliance costs and payroll changes; Exchequer effects depend on scope and behavioural response.

Distributional effects: Potentially concentrated in sectors with high pension participation; potential downstream effects on take-home pay and pension generosity.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: political Complexity for payroll software; political sensitivity if framed as a “jobs tax” or pension penalty.

Timeline & milestones: Bill introduced Dec 2025; commencement date depends on passage and implementation lead time for employers/software.

Outcome score: 0 — Could raise revenue or reshape incentives, but policy value depends on design and mitigations.

Free School Meals — Expansion to All Families on Universal Credit

Status: administrative Lead: DfE Start: 2024-09 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Give every child in a family receiving Universal Credit a free school lunch, to reduce hunger and help with the cost of living.

Mechanism(s): National eligibility change; funding provided to schools and local authorities to meet higher demand.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: education Horizon: short Hundreds of thousands more children now receive a meal each school day.
Impact: likely Area: welfare Horizon: medium Improves attendance and concentration; saves families ~£500 per child per year.
Unknown Long‑run attainment impacts for cohorts newly eligible.

Costs & funding: Additional central funding; partly covered by revenue from VAT on private school fees.

Distributional effects: Benefits lowest‑income families most; helps areas with high deprivation.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Catering capacity in some schools; Risk: data-gap take‑up rates tracking.

Timeline & milestones: Implemented from September 2024; monitoring reports from 2025.

Outcome score: +2 — Targeted help with clear daily benefits for children and families.

Primary School Free Breakfast Clubs — National Rollout

Status: programme Lead: DfE Start: 2025-04 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Offer a free, healthy breakfast before lessons in every primary school, to help children learn and to support working parents.

Mechanism(s): Grants to schools; phased rollout prioritising disadvantaged areas; national guidance on menus and staffing.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: education Horizon: short Millions of breakfasts served in first terms; strong take‑up in target areas.
Impact: likely Area: welfare Horizon: medium Better punctuality and focus in class; childcare support (time buffer) for parents.
Unknown Long‑term attainment changes and health outcomes.

Costs & funding: Dedicated DfE budget line; typical school grant around tens of thousands per year depending on size and uptake.

Distributional effects: Universal within participating primaries, but most valuable in low‑income communities.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Staffing and space constraints in some schools; Risk: finance sustained funding across years.

Timeline & milestones: Early adopters April 2025; next wave September 2025; full coverage targeted by 2027.

Outcome score: +2 — Practical, universal service with strong early signals.

Winter Fuel Payment — Cut, Backlash and Targeted Reversal

Status: administrative Lead: HMT/DWP Start: 2024-07; revised 2025-06 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Originally cut the Winter Fuel Payment to focus on the poorest pensioners; then partially reversed to cover most pensioners again after backlash.

Mechanism(s): Means‑testing decision (2024) reduced eligible pensioners; 2025 change raised the income threshold to around £35,000 so about 9 million receive it again.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: welfare Horizon: short 2024/25 winter saw a sharp drop in recipients; 2025/26 restores most coverage with continued exclusion of highest‑income pensioners.
Impact: likely Area: welfare Horizon: short Net fiscal effect: one winter of savings, then higher ongoing costs vs the 2024 cut.
Unknown Longer‑term policy direction for universal vs targeted pensioner support.

Costs & funding: Reversal costs roughly £1.25bn per year (England/Wales), funded within tight budgets.

Distributional effects: Temporary hardship risk in 2024/25 winter for near‑threshold households; restoration improves coverage while excluding the best‑off.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political Optics of U‑turn; Risk: fiscal pressure on other budgets.

Timeline & milestones: Means‑test announced July 2024; reversal announced June 2025 for winter 2025/26 onward.

Outcome score: −1 — Poorly sequenced; reversal limits harm but adds fiscal pressure.

Warm Home Discount — Continuation and Targeting

Status: administrative Lead: DESNZ/DWP Start: annual Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Provide a one‑off bill credit to low‑income households’ electricity accounts during winter.

Mechanism(s): Supplier‑delivered discount for eligible customers, with data‑matching to identify low‑income, high‑cost homes.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: welfare Horizon: short Millions receive a £150 bill credit each winter.
Impact: likely Area: welfare Horizon: short Helps avoid arrears and disconnections; complements broader energy support.
Unknown Targeting precision under new data rules; overlap with local schemes.

Costs & funding: Scheme costs recovered via supplier obligations and set‑aside budgets.

Distributional effects: Benefits low‑income and high‑energy‑cost households, including many older people and disabled people.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Data‑matching errors; Risk: policy energy price volatility.

Timeline & milestones: Annual winter cycles; rules refreshed periodically.

Outcome score: +1 — Simple, proven support that cushions winter bills.

2.6 — Education and Skills

Scope: School system funding; private-to-state movement; teacher workforce; childcare; skills and apprenticeships; higher education pressures; curriculum and standards; safeguarding guidance.

VAT on Private School Fees and Removal of Rates Relief

Status: enacted Lead: HM Treasury / Department for Education Start: 2025-01 Horizon: medium

Intent: Raise money for state education and reduce unfair tax advantages for private (independent) schools by charging Value Added Tax (VAT) on fees and removing business rates relief.

Mechanism(s): Budget measures and secondary legislation: 20% VAT applied to most fees from Jan 2025; charitable business rates relief removed from April 2025.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: education Horizon: short Private school rolls fell by roughly 1.9% mid‑year (≈10–11k pupils), with dozens of small schools announcing closures/mergers; state capacity absorbed most leavers so far.
Impact: likely Area: education Horizon: medium Policy expected to raise ≈£1.7bn per year to fund teachers, free school meals, and breakfast clubs.
Unknown Localised pressure in already full state schools; uneven effects by region.

Costs & funding: New revenue recycled to education; transition grants available for local authorities to handle hotspots.

Distributional effects: Benefits the 90%+ of children in state schools; higher costs for some private school families; closure risk concentrated in smaller schools.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Managing intake in oversubscribed areas; Risk: political public debate on fairness; Risk: data-gap timely tracking of transfers.

Timeline & milestones: VAT in force Jan 2025; rates relief removal from Apr 2025; first full-year outturns in 2025/26.

Outcome score: +1 — Additional funding for state pupils with manageable system pressures so far.

RSHE (Relationships, Sex and Health Education) Statutory Guidance 2025

Status: administrative Lead: Department for Education Start: 2025-07 Horizon: medium

Intent: Update England’s statutory guidance so schools teach the law on biological sex and gender reassignment, avoid presenting “everyone has a gender identity” as fact, and use professional judgement rather than hard age‑bans. Compulsory from Sept 2026 (schools may adopt earlier).

Mechanism(s): Revised statutory guidance; teacher training materials; inspector oversight.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: education Horizon: short Clearer legal framing for sensitive topics; hard age-bans from the previous draft dropped.
Impact: likely Area: education Horizon: medium Reduced inconsistency across schools; better parental engagement.
Unknown Staff confidence and training capacity; workload implications.

Costs & funding: Low direct cost; time for staff training and curriculum planning.

Distributional effects: Greater clarity for teachers, pupils and parents; sensitive for some communities.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Staff training; Risk: legal complaints handling; Risk: political culture‑war framing.

Timeline & milestones: Published July 2025; compulsory Sept 2026; interim support 2025/26.

Outcome score: +1 — Clearer guidance with flexible application, pending teacher support.

Teacher Workforce and Pay Plan

Status: programme Lead: Department for Education Start: 2024-07 Horizon: medium

Intent: Stabilise the workforce by resolving strikes, improving pay, and recruiting more teachers (with a headline goal of several thousand extra teachers over the Parliament).

Mechanism(s): Pay awards; recruitment campaigns; bursaries and retention payments; subject‑shortage incentives.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: education Horizon: short New pay deals agreed; recruitment campaigns underway; early upticks in applications.
Impact: likely Area: education Horizon: medium Reduced vacancy rates in shortage subjects if incentives maintained.
Unknown Retention beyond year one; workload and behaviour pressures.

Costs & funding: Pay awards funded by DfE allocations and VAT‑linked revenue; school budget pressures remain tight.

Distributional effects: Gains strongest in shortage subjects and high‑need areas; school finances vary widely.

Risks & constraints: Risk: finance School budget headroom; Risk: delivery training capacity; Risk: political expectations vs fiscal rules.

Timeline & milestones: Annual pay rounds; recruitment targets reviewed each term.

Outcome score: +1 — Strikes resolved and recruitment improving, but retention and budgets are tight.

Universal Childcare Expansion (30 Hours)

Status: programme Lead: Department for Education / HM Treasury Start: 2025-04 Horizon: medium

Intent: Expand funded childcare (up to 30 hours) to younger children to help parents work and reduce household costs.

Mechanism(s): Increased per‑place funding to providers; phased age‑group rollout; workforce training and recruitment.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: education Horizon: short Parents’ out‑of‑pocket costs fall where places exist; labour‑market participation improves for some parents.
Impact: likely Area: education Horizon: medium More stable attendance and early language gains if quality is maintained.
Unknown Provider capacity and staff recruitment in some localities.

Costs & funding: Significant multi‑year funding; risk of shortfalls if take‑up outpaces provider capacity.

Distributional effects: Strongest benefits for working parents of under‑threes; risks of “childcare deserts” where supply lags.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Workforce shortages; Risk: finance provider sustainability; Risk: regional uneven capacity.

Timeline & milestones: Phased rollout in 2025/26; evaluation after first full year.

Outcome score: +2 — Direct household benefit, contingent on provider capacity.

Skills England and Modern Apprenticeships

Status: bill-in-train Lead: Department for Education Start: 2025-11 Horizon: medium

Intent: Create a national body (Skills England) to coordinate training with local economic needs and improve apprenticeship quality and take‑up.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation; new governance; funding re‑alignment with regional devolved authorities; employer partnerships.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: skills Horizon: medium Better match between courses and local jobs; improved completion rates with higher‑quality standards.
Impact: proven Area: skills Horizon: short A delivery roadmap set out milestones and sequencing (including links to the Lifelong Learning Entitlement timetable).
Impact: hypothetical Area: economy Horizon: long Productivity lift from aligned training pipelines.
Unknown Levy rules and incentives still under review.

Costs & funding: Consolidation of budgets; transitional admin costs; potential employer co‑funding.

Distributional effects: Opportunities for young people and career‑changers; regional rebalancing where local industrial strategies exist.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Coordination across Whitehall and mayors; Risk: finance stable funding; Risk: data-gap outcome tracking.

Timeline & milestones: Bill passage; board setup; first annual plan within 12 months of Royal Assent.

Outcome score: +1 — Sensible coordination reform; success hinges on delivery and employer buy‑in.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill (introduced)

Status: bill-in-train Lead: DHSC/NHS England Start: 2026-01 Horizon: long

Intent (plain language): Prioritise domestic medical training places and shape training pipelines so the NHS has a more reliable supply of clinicians over the medium term.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation to set duties and/or priorities around medical training allocation and planning (exact effect depends on the bill’s final text and implementation approach).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: nhs Horizon: long A clearer training priority framework could support workforce sustainability, but effects take years to materialise.
Unknown Interaction with existing NHS workforce plans, placement capacity, and funding for medical school and foundation training.

Costs & funding: Training expansion requires sustained education and placement funding; costs are front‑loaded with long‑run returns via staffing stability.

Distributional effects: Potential benefits for underserved regions if training places and placements are targeted; risk of concentration in already-strong teaching centres.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Placement and educator capacity; Risk: finance long-term funding; Risk: governance overlapping mandates across DHSC, NHS England and universities.

Timeline & milestones: Bill introduced Jan 2026; impact depends on passage, commencement and workforce planning cycles.

Outcome score: +1 — High potential long-run value, but slow-burn and capacity constrained.

Higher Education Pressures: Funding and International Students

Status: administrative Lead: Department for Education / Home Office Start: 2024-11 Horizon: medium

Intent: Stabilise university finances (including fee uprating with inflation) while tightening some student visa routes; find balance between sector health and migration policy.

Mechanism(s): Fee uprating decisions; immigration rule changes (e.g., dependants, course types); guidance to the sector; counter‑interference support and reporting routes for universities where foreign interference risks are rising.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: education Horizon: short Inflation‑linked fee uprating eases acute pressure at some universities.
Impact: likely Area: education Horizon: medium Tighter visas reduce some enrolments, especially taught masters; risk to cross‑subsidy of research.
Impact: likely Area: education Horizon: short New briefings and a reporting route for academic interference aim to harden university resilience, with operational value depending on uptake and clarity.
Unknown Long‑term balance between income stability and student flows.

Costs & funding: No large new grants; relies on fee income and international cohorts; risk of deficits at vulnerable institutions.

Distributional effects: Possible subject closures and regional effects where universities are major employers.

Risks & constraints: Risk: finance institutional solvency; Risk: political migration targets vs sector needs.

Timeline & milestones: Annual fee decisions; visa rule updates; OfS monitoring through the year.

Outcome score: 0 — Necessary stop‑gap with real trade‑offs and uncertain medium‑term outcomes.

School Places: Capital and Capacity

Status: programme Lead: Department for Education / Local Authorities Start: 2024-10 Horizon: medium

Intent: Ensure sufficient state school places where private‑to‑state transfers and demographics increase demand.

Mechanism(s): Basic need allocations; targeted expansions; new free schools in hotspots; temporary bulge classes where required.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: education Horizon: short Most new state enrolments from private exits absorbed without widespread class size breaches.
Impact: likely Area: education Horizon: medium Targeted projects in high‑pressure areas keep average class sizes stable.
Unknown Construction cost inflation and planning timelines.

Costs & funding: Multi‑year capital settlement; local co‑funding; site acquisition in constrained urban areas.

Distributional effects: Strongest in high‑growth regions; rural areas may face different pressures.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery build delays; Risk: finance cost escalation; Risk: planning site constraints.

Timeline & milestones: Annual allocations; project completions on a 12–24 month cycle.

Outcome score: +1 — Pragmatic expansion where needed; delivery risk from costs and planning.

Curriculum and Standards (Literacy, Numeracy, Digital and Arts)

Status: programme Lead: Department for Education Start: 2024-12 Horizon: medium

Intent: Improve core skills and broaden access to arts and digital learning, with targeted support for struggling pupils.

Mechanism(s): Tutoring and catch‑up schemes; subject hubs; “arts premium” pilots; digital skills pathways tied to local colleges.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: education Horizon: medium Sustained tutoring and subject hubs raise attainment, especially for disadvantaged pupils.
Unknown Scale and funding durability for arts and digital at national level.

Costs & funding: Within DfE programme budgets; potential philanthropic partnerships.

Distributional effects: Benefits most felt in low‑attainment areas; arts access particularly valuable where provision is thin.

Risks & constraints: Risk: finance budget pressures; Risk: delivery teacher time and training.

Timeline & milestones: Annual programme cycles; evaluation reports feeding into scaling decisions.

Outcome score: +1 — Evidence‑based direction; impact depends on scale and longevity.

Education‑Linked Meal and Breakfast Programmes (Cross‑ref to 2.5)

Status: programme Lead: Department for Education Start: 2024-09 Horizon: short

Intent: Expand free school meals to all families on Universal Credit and roll out free breakfast clubs for primary pupils, to improve nutrition, attendance and readiness to learn.

Mechanism(s): National eligibility change; grant‑funded breakfast clubs; simple sign‑up processes; schools choose delivery model.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: education Horizon: short Hundreds of thousands more children receiving free lunches; millions of breakfasts served in pilot areas; early reports of better punctuality and focus.
Impact: likely Area: education Horizon: medium Attendance and attainment benefits where take‑up is high.

Costs & funding: Funded from VAT revenue and DfE budgets; per‑school grants for breakfast setup and staffing.

Distributional effects: Strongest gains for low‑income families and high‑deprivation schools.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery staffing for early starts; Risk: data-gap sustained participation tracking.

Timeline & milestones: FSM expansion live from Sept 2024; breakfast clubs phased in 2025/26 toward national coverage by 2027.

Outcome score: +2 — Tangible, near‑term help for families and schools with strong evidence of benefit.

Special Educational Needs (SEND) Reforms & Backlash

Status: consideration Lead: DfE Start: 2025-07 Horizon: long

Intent (plain language): Explore changes to Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) to curb bureaucracy and improve inclusion in mainstream schools, while managing soaring costs.

Mechanism(s): White Paper proposals (expected 2025); potential guidance changes and/or primary legislation; possible phased pilots.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: public-services Aim to reduce delays and legal battles; redirect support earlier.
Impact: proven Area: stakeholders Strong pushback from parents, charities and MPs over loss of legal protections.
Unknown Whether mainstream schools can deliver support without EHCP guarantees.

Costs & funding: Potential savings from fewer specialist placements; transition and training costs if reforms proceed.

Distributional effects: Children with mild‑to‑moderate needs most affected; risk of postcode variation; councils gain flexibility if funded.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political internal revolt; Risk: legal rights challenges; Risk: social harm to vulnerable children if support slips.

Timeline & milestones: Mid‑2025 signalling and debate; White Paper expected autumn 2025; possible legislation 2026 with pilots before wider roll‑out.

Outcome score: −1 (provisional) — Goals understandable; trust fragile without clear safeguards and funding.

2.7 — Migration, Borders and Asylum

Scope: System throughput; irregular migration; legal routes; enforcement.

Policy Group Notes

Crossings volume and backlog metrics: track quarterly to see if (a) the backlog programme and (b) the France pilot reduce arrivals and hotel use. [links: Backlog Recovery; UK–France Pilot]
Appeals and tribunals: the best‑laid enforcement and backlog plans still depend on hearing capacity; monitor Ministry of Justice performance and any reforms. [links: Backlog Recovery; Borders & Enforcement Bill]
Local impacts: safe routes rely on councils for housing and schools; outcome quality depends on local integration grants and capacity. [links: Safe and Legal Routes]
Legal safeguards: sanctions and removals must balance speed with fairness; transparent guidance and published safeguards reduce legal risk. [links: Border Security Command; Removals & Returns]

Border Security Command & Smuggling Sanctions

Status: programme Lead: Home Office/National Crime Agency Start: 2024-08 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Create a single command to coordinate police, Border Force and the crime agency against people‑smuggling gangs, and cut their money flows with targeted sanctions.

Mechanism(s): Administrative reorganisation (new command); sanctions regime that can freeze assets and ban travel for named facilitators; joint tasking with French counterparts on beaches and in the Channel.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: migration Horizon: short Named smugglers designated; first assets and accounts frozen.
Impact: likely Area: migration Horizon: medium Closer cooperation improves arrests and boat seizures on both sides of the Channel.
Unknown Long‑run deterrent effect on crossings volume.

Costs & funding: Command staffed largely from existing agencies; sanctions administration funded from HO baseline.

Distributional effects: Focuses enforcement on organised criminals, not genuine refugees; minimal direct impact on communities except for fewer criminal operations in coastal areas.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legal Evidence standards for sanctions; Risk: delivery data‑sharing with partners; Risk: political expectations vs measurable reductions.

Timeline & milestones: Command stood up (2024 Q3); first sanctions designations (2025 Q1–Q2); joint operations scale‑up through 2025.

Outcome score: +1 — Coherent focus on gangs; success hinges on cross‑border intelligence and rapid legal processes.

Asylum Backlog Recovery Programme

Status: programme Lead: Home Office Start: 2024-08 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Reduce the number of undecided asylum cases by hiring and training more decision‑makers, using simpler forms for clear cases, and speeding up interviews.

Mechanism(s): Hiring surge; simplified questionnaires for well‑founded nationalities; triage; extra interview capacity (evenings/weekends).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: migration Horizon: short Pending cases cut significantly from the 2023 peak; faster decisions per quarter.
Impact: likely Area: migration Horizon: short Fewer people in hotels as cases move to a decision.
Unknown Appeals system throughput and tribunal capacity.

Costs & funding: Recruitment and overtime funded within Home Office settlement; tribunal funding pressures remain.

Distributional effects: Faster grants move people to lawful work and housing; faster refusals enable removals or voluntary returns.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Recruiting experienced caseworkers; Risk: legal quality of decisions leading to appeals; Risk: data-gap incomplete real‑time stats across regions.

Timeline & milestones: Decision surge (2024 Q4–2025 Q2); next target to clear legacy cohorts; tribunal reform proposals due 2025.

Outcome score: +1 — Visible progress on throughput; sustained improvement depends on appeals capacity and quality assurance.

Irregular Migration Narrative — Record Crossing Day

Status: consideration Lead: Home Office/No.10 Start: 2025-08 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): A record day for small‑boat crossings undercut the government narrative while alternative measures were being developed post‑Rwanda.

Mechanism(s): Operational performance and weather; enforcement activity; French cooperation.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Record day reported; pressure increased to show results.
Impact: likely Balanced package (enforcement plus safe routes) needed for durable impact.
Unknown Near‑term deterrence effects of new measures.

Costs & funding: Operational costs within Home Office budgets.

Distributional effects: Local impacts in coastal areas; wider public confidence effects.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political Expectations vs delivery; Risk: international partner cooperation.

Timeline & milestones: Peaks in 2025; pilot returns with France and safe‑route expansions underway.

Outcome score: −1 — Progress exists elsewhere, but headline numbers dominate.

UK–France “one in, one out” Returns Pilot

Status: programme Lead: No.10/Home Office Start: 2025-07 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Return a small number of people who arrive across the Channel to France, while Britain takes the same number from France by a safe legal route (family ties first).

Mechanism(s): Bilateral administrative agreement; fast‑track processing at arrival sites; French reception and UK family‑reunion pathway.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: migration Horizon: short First detentions and scheduled returns completed under the pilot.
Impact: likely Area: migration Horizon: short Small but symbolic returns restore a path blocked since leaving the EU.
Unknown Scale‑up feasibility and deterrent effect at current arrival volumes.

Costs & funding: Within existing HO operations; some accommodation and casework costs for legal route entrants.

Distributional effects: Reduces incentives for dangerous crossings for some; creates a controlled route for people with family in the UK.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Capacity limits (initially dozens per week); Risk: legal individual challenges; Risk: political French and UK domestic pressures.

Timeline & milestones: Pilot launch (2025 Q3); review point after first months; decision on expansion with EU partners in 2026.

Outcome score: +1 — Useful proof‑of‑concept; impact depends on scaling and parallel safe‑route capacity.

Safe and Legal Routes (Resettlement & Family Reunion)

Status: programme Lead: Home Office/FCDO Start: ongoing Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Expand controlled ways to reach the UK without using smugglers—UN‑led resettlement and family reunion—so people with strong claims can travel safely.

Mechanism(s): Annual resettlement quotas; caseworker teams overseas; streamlined family‑reunion processes tied to the France pilot.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: migration Horizon: short Thousands resettled each year under UN schemes and bespoke programmes.
Impact: likely Area: migration Horizon: medium Family‑reunion route eases pressure on irregular crossings for those with ties.
Unknown Demand vs capacity, especially for Afghans and other high‑need groups.

Costs & funding: Funded places within HO/FCDO budgets; local authority grants for housing and integration.

Distributional effects: Helps the most vulnerable and those with family links; requires local housing and school places.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Council capacity to host; Risk: finance grant sufficiency; Risk: political balancing numbers with wider pressures.

Timeline & milestones: Annual quota confirmations; family‑reunion portal aligned with France pilot (2025 Q3).

Outcome score: +2 — Ethical, rules‑based routes that undercut smugglers when combined with enforcement.

Asylum and Returns Policy Statement — “Restoring Order and Control”

Status: policy-statement Lead: Home Office/No.10 Start: 2025-11 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Reframe the system around faster decisions, higher removals of those with no right to stay, and tighter pathways to status and settlement, while maintaining controlled safe routes.

Mechanism(s): Published policy statement and accompanying delivery direction across backlog, returns, enforcement and settlement rules; impact depends on operational plans, capacity and subsequent legislation/rule changes.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: migration Horizon: short Clearer stated priorities can sharpen operational focus, but outcomes hinge on tribunal capacity and returns logistics.
Unknown Whether stated removals targets are achievable without expanding detention/escorts and partner-country cooperation.

Costs & funding: Primarily operational; costs depend on enforcement tempo, detention, casework and legal processes.

Distributional effects: Faster grants/decisions reduce limbo and hotel use; tighter settlement rules concentrate impacts on families, employers and universities depending on scope.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: delivery Judicial review risk; capacity bottlenecks; reputational risk if safeguards are perceived as weakened.

Timeline & milestones: Published Nov 2025; follow-through via rule changes, operational plans and (where needed) legislation through 2026.

Outcome score: 0 — Sets direction, but delivery is constrained by capacity, law and partner cooperation.

Removals and Returns Uplift

Status: programme Lead: Home Office Start: 2024-09 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Increase the number of people removed who have no right to stay, prioritising foreign national offenders and swiftly resolving failed claims.

Mechanism(s): More enforcement visits; charter flights; updated readmission deals (e.g., with Albania); case‑resolution drives.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: migration Horizon: short Enforced removals and voluntary returns up from pandemic lows; foreign national offender removals up year‑on‑year.
Impact: likely Area: migration Horizon: short Deterrence among cohorts with weak claims; faster case closure reduces costs.
Unknown Sustaining capacity given legal challenges and escort staffing.

Costs & funding: Flight and detention costs within HO envelope; some recoveries via bilateral cost‑sharing.

Distributional effects: Public safety benefit from deporting serious offenders; limited community impact elsewhere.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legal judicial review and country‑of‑origin barriers; Risk: delivery escorts, detention space; Risk: political high‑profile cases.

Timeline & milestones: Quarterly removal targets; new readmission MoUs; returns pipeline tied to backlog decisions.

Outcome score: +1 — Activity levels improving; legal and capacity bottlenecks remain the main brake.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (post‑Rwanda framework)

Status: enacted Lead: Home Office Start: 2025-12 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Replace the previous government’s Rwanda plan with a lawful approach: tougher action on gangs, targeted removals, more safe routes, and faster case handling. Clarify how “inadmissibility” and appeals will work without offshoring.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation to tidy the statute book after Rwanda repeal; amendments on appeals timelines; modern slavery referral rules; new offences for facilitation; with commencement and operational guidance determining real-world effect.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: migration Horizon: medium Clearer rules speed up decisions and removals; reduce hotel use.
Impact: hypothetical Area: migration Horizon: medium Balanced system—firm on illegal entry, fair on refugees—improves compliance and trust.
Unknown Court interpretation of revised timelines and protections.

Costs & funding: Marginal legislative and system change costs; savings if hotel use falls and cases close sooner.

Distributional effects: More certainty for applicants; clearer protection for trafficking victims while limiting abuse of the system.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legal compatibility with international obligations; Risk: political pressure from both sides; Risk: delivery IT/process readiness.

Timeline & milestones: Royal Assent Dec 2025; commencement via secondary rules; operational guidance to follow through 2026.

Outcome score: +1 — Sensible clean‑up and process fixes; results depend on delivery and court rulings.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Act 2025

Status: enacted Lead: Home Office Start: 2025-10 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Change how deprivation of citizenship orders operate during appeal periods, closing a perceived legal “gap” in the effect of orders while challenges are ongoing.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation clarifying the effect/timing of deprivation orders during appeals (operational impact depends on Home Office guidance and court interpretation).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: security Horizon: medium Strengthens government’s hand in high-risk nationality cases by reducing delay/uncertainty during appeals.
Unknown Rights and fairness impacts, including how courts interpret safeguards and proportionality.

Costs & funding: Administrative and legal casework costs; depends on volume of deprivation cases and litigation.

Distributional effects: Impacts a small number of cases, but with high consequence for affected individuals and families.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: rights Litigation and reputational risk; need for robust evidence standards and published safeguards.

Timeline & milestones: Royal Assent Oct 2025; operational guidance and case law will clarify effects over time.

Outcome score: 0 — Potentially strengthens national security posture, but fairness and legal safeguards are central.

Universities and Migration — International Student Squeeze

Status: consideration Lead: Home Office/DfE/HMT Start: 2025-09 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): A proposed international‑student levy and a shorter Graduate Route raised warnings about harm to regional economies and the higher‑education sector.

Mechanism(s): Policy proposals and consultations; immigration rules; sector engagement.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Widespread sector concern reported; regional economy risks highlighted.
Impact: likely Calibrated targeting and transition paths could limit damage.
Unknown Final design, timing and net enrolment effects.

Costs & funding: Potential revenue from levies vs sectoral impacts; fiscal trade‑offs.

Distributional effects: Universities, local economies, students; strongest effects outside the South East.

Risks & constraints: Risk: economy Export‑earnings impact; Risk: delivery visa processing; Risk: political regional pushback.

Timeline & milestones: Proposals and debate in 2025; possible rule changes in next academic cycle.

Outcome score: −1 — Risks to regional growth and sector health unless finely tuned.

Visa and Settlement Rule Tightenings (implemented/queued)

Status: administrative Lead: Home Office Start: 2025-12 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Tighten eligibility and pathways across visas and settlement to reduce inflows and increase compliance, with knock‑on effects for employers, universities and families.

Mechanism(s): Immigration Rules changes and administrative guidance (some in force, others announced/queued), with impacts depending on timing, exemptions and enforcement.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: migration Horizon: medium Tighter rules can reduce some visa volumes and slow settlement routes, with higher friction for sponsors and applicants.
Unknown Net effect on universities and regional economies, and whether changes shift routes rather than reduce total flows.

Costs & funding: Sponsor compliance costs; Home Office processing and enforcement costs; potential fiscal effects via tax receipts and tuition export earnings.

Distributional effects: Concentrated impacts on sectors reliant on skilled visas and on universities; family-route impacts depend on thresholds and exemptions.

Risks & constraints: Risk: economyRisk: delivery Skills shortages and reduced international student income; processing capacity; legal challenges in edge cases.

Timeline & milestones: Commons Library briefing documents 2025 rule changes and planned steps; track effective dates as they come into force.

Outcome score: 0 — Could improve control optics, but risks to growth and services depend on design and calibration.

2.8 — Digital, Data and AI

Scope: Data portability that lets people and small firms share their data safely to save money or get better deals; trusted digital identity to prove who you are online; an institute that tests powerful AI models before they go live; modern product safety for online marketplaces; and the Online Safety Act implementation stance (with a separate deep-dive report linked elsewhere).

Policy Group Notes

Measured benefits from pilots (fraud reduction, easier switching, SME finance) should be surfaced in simple, human terms (e.g., “minutes saved,” “£ saved per year”), not just technical metrics.
AI testing results should explain the risk in plain English (e.g., “the model could be tricked into explaining harmful steps”), and show what changed after fixes.
Data portability should avoid jargon (“download your data” vs “API access”) and give easy routes for people with lower digital confidence.
Product safety updates should spell out what’s new for shoppers (“marketplaces must remove unsafe goods quickly and keep devices updated”).

Data (Use & Access) Act 2025 — Smart Data and Digital Identity

Status: enacted Lead: DSIT/OfDIA Start: 2025-06 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Give government the legal tools to switch on “Smart Data” schemes across sectors so people can share their own data (like energy use or telecoms bills) with trusted apps to get a better deal, and put the UK’s digital identity trust framework on a firm legal footing so people can prove who they are online easily and safely.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation that (1) lets ministers create sector-specific Smart Data regulations; (2) establishes a statutory Digital Verification Services regime with a government-run register of certified identity providers (via the Office for Digital Identities and Attributes, OfDIA); and (3) brings other data enablers like the National Underground Asset Register into scope.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: digital Horizon: short Act received Royal Assent; OfDIA preparing the statutory provider register and trust mark.
Impact: likely Area: digital Horizon: medium First Smart Data schemes (energy/telecoms) expected via secondary rules from 2025–26, building on pilots that cut hassle and fraud.
Unknown Final design choices (privacy safeguards, redress, inclusion) will be set in sector regulations; real-world uptake depends on user-friendly services.

Costs & funding: Setup and oversight costs for government and regulators; compliance costs for firms; expected net savings for households/SMEs from easier switching and lower fraud.

Distributional effects: Benefits everyday users and small businesses by putting them in control of their data; risk of excluding people without smartphones or formal ID unless inclusion measures are built in.

Risks & constraints: Risk: securityRisk: deliveryRisk: legal Getting consent, security and liability right; avoiding vendor lock-in; making data standards interoperable across sectors.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-06 Royal Assent; late-2025 OfDIA register and trust mark go live; 2026 first sector schemes begin (energy/telecoms).

Outcome score: +2 — Clear enabler for pro-consumer, pro-competition services if implemented with strong safeguards.

Smart Data Schemes — Energy, Telecoms and Finance roll-out

Status: programme Lead: DSIT with Ofgem/Ofcom/FCA Start: 2024-11 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Turn the new legal powers into practical schemes that let people share their usage and billing data (with permission) to find cheaper tariffs, get fairer deals, and access green or growth finance more easily.

Mechanism(s): Pilots (e.g., “Perseus” linking business smart meter data to banks for green loans), consultations, and then sector regulations that mandate secure data-sharing pipes between companies and certified third parties. A cross-sector Smart Data Group coordinates standards and timing.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: energy Horizon: short Early energy Smart Data services already help hundreds of thousands compare tariffs or plan retrofits, cutting admin time for households and SMEs.
Impact: likely Area: digital Horizon: medium Standardised data access in telecoms and banking expected to reduce bill shock and fraud, and boost competition.
Unknown Real savings depend on consumer uptake, app quality, and regulator enforcement of standards.

Costs & funding: Integration and compliance costs for providers; expected net benefits through reduced search costs, fewer errors, and better credit decisions.

Distributional effects: Strong upside for bill-payers and small firms; ensure accessible design for people with low digital confidence.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: security Interoperability across legacy IT; consistent, secure consent flows; avoiding “dark patterns.”

Timeline & milestones: 2024–25 pilots and consultations; 2026 first mandatory schemes switch on; 2027+ expansion to more sectors.

Outcome score: +2 — Likely to save money and time at scale if the pipes and protections are done well.

UK AI Safety/Security Institute — testing models before deployment

Status: programme Lead: DSIT/AISI Start: 2024-11 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Test powerful AI models for dangerous capabilities (like helping with cybercrime or bio-harm) before and after they are released, publish methods and results, and set shared standards with partners overseas.

Mechanism(s): Government institute with an expert team that runs standard evaluations, “red team” tests under non-disclosure agreements with labs, and open-sources its testing toolkit (e.g., “Inspect”) so others can replicate checks. Partnerships with peer bodies in the US, EU and Canada.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: ai Horizon: short First test reports published; Inspect tool released; at least one frontier model was red-teamed before launch.
Impact: likely Area: ai Horizon: medium Pre-deployment testing becomes standard for leading models and informs procurement and safety guidance.
Unknown How quickly tests must evolve to keep pace with new model capabilities; how findings translate into enforceable guardrails.

Costs & funding: Public funding for staff, secure compute and partnerships; relatively modest compared with the potential costs of unsafe deployment.

Distributional effects: Benefits users and public services by reducing risk; some compliance and disclosure costs for AI developers.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: access Continuous access to cutting-edge models; staying technically ahead; coordination with international regulators.

Timeline & milestones: 2024 launch; 2025 first evaluations, tool release, and US/Canada partnerships; 2026 common evaluation baselines agreed with partners.

Outcome score: +2 — Practical safety testing is now happening; impact grows as standards embed across the industry.

Public-Sector Digital Identity — trusted checks for everyday life

Status: programme Lead: DSIT/OfDIA/Cabinet Office Start: 2025-06 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Let people prove they are who they say they are online (for example, to rent a flat, verify age, or start a job) using certified apps that meet government standards, without repeatedly scanning paperwork or sharing more data than needed.

Mechanism(s): Statutory Digital Verification Services: government certifies providers, publishes a register and trust mark, and allows controlled data checks to verify identity attributes (such as age or right to work). Services must be private by default and consent-based.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: digital Horizon: short The Act moves digital identity into a statutory Digital Verification Services (DVS) regime; the trust framework becomes the baseline for a certification + trust‑mark model that services can build to.
Impact: likely Area: economy Horizon: medium Faster, safer onboarding across renting, hiring and payments reduces fraud and admin burden.
Unknown Inclusion and accessibility outcomes; cross-border recognition with other countries’ ID systems.

Costs & funding: Certification and compliance costs for providers; net savings from reduced document checks and fraud for employers, landlords and users.

Distributional effects: Convenience gains for most users; ensure offline routes remain for those without smartphones or formal documents.

Risks & constraints: Risk: securityRisk: legal Strong privacy-by-design, clear liability and robust complaint routes are essential to build trust.

Timeline & milestones: Late-2025: DVS trust framework becomes the compliance baseline and certification ramps up; register opens and first providers are certified; 2026: wider adoption across renting, age checks and right-to-work flows.

Outcome score: +1 — High-utility public infrastructure if delivered with strong privacy, reliable tech and inclusive design.

Cyber Security and Resilience (NIS) Bill — critical infrastructure baseline (introduced)

Status: bill Lead: DSIT/NCSC Start: 2025-11 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Raise the baseline level of cyber resilience for essential services and key digital providers, by modernising the UK’s Network and Information Systems (NIS) framework and tightening duties around risk management and incident response.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation introduced to Parliament to update the UK’s cyber resilience rules for covered sectors, including the scope of who is regulated and what is required (with detailed obligations expected to be clarified through the bill process and follow‑on regulation/guidance).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: security Horizon: short Bill introduced (status change from “idea” to a live legislative programme).
Impact: likely Area: security Horizon: medium Clearer baseline security duties and incident handling should reduce systemic risk from common cyber failures (if enforcement and sector guidance keep pace).
Unknown Final scope, regulator capacity and interaction with sector-specific cyber rules (e.g., finance, telecoms, energy).

Costs & funding: Compliance and assurance costs for regulated operators; oversight and enforcement resourcing for regulators.

Distributional effects: Concentrated burdens on operators in covered sectors; broad benefits if outages and breaches reduce.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: capacityRisk: regulatory Compliance can degrade into paperwork without clear technical standards and auditability; enforcement must be credible for high-risk operators.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-11 introduced; 2026+ depends on passage, commencement and sector guidance.

Outcome score: +1 — Sensible “systems plumbing”, but delivery depends on scope, standards and enforcement.

Product Safety for the Online Age — new powers and duties

Status: enacted Lead: DBT/OPSS Start: 2025-07 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Update product safety rules so they clearly cover software and “smart” devices, and make online marketplaces share responsibility for removing dangerous goods.

Mechanism(s): Product Regulation & Metrology Act 2025 gives ministers power to update safety rules by regulation; brings software and installers explicitly into scope; requires platforms to cooperate with investigations; and enables new rules like electrical product cybersecurity and update support.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: consumer Horizon: short Act passed; OPSS issued an online marketplace code and has begun coordinated take-downs of unsafe listings.
Impact: likely Area: digital Horizon: medium Upcoming regulations on connected device safety and security updates should cut fire and hacking risks.
Unknown Enforcement capacity against overseas sellers and smaller platforms.

Costs & funding: Compliance investment for platforms/sellers; regulator resourcing for investigations; benefits from fewer injuries and recalls.

Distributional effects: Safer consumer goods for everyone; small sellers may face higher compliance costs and need guidance.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: delivery Cross-border enforcement and consistency with international standards.

Timeline & milestones: 2025 Act in force; 2025–26 marketplace code and guidance; 2026 first specific regulations (e.g., electrical/connected devices).

Outcome score: +2 — Brings safety law into line with how people actually shop and use devices.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 — digital assets as personal property

Status: enacted Lead: MoJ Start: 2025-12 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Reduce legal uncertainty by confirming that certain digital assets can be treated as personal property, making it easier to apply familiar rules around ownership, transfers and remedies to new forms of value.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation clarifying that a digital asset is not excluded from being “property” just because it is neither a physical thing nor a traditional “thing in action”. This supports courts and practitioners in applying property concepts to digital assets in disputes and transactions.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: digital Horizon: short Act passed, providing a clearer statutory basis for treating digital assets as personal property.
Impact: likely Area: economy Horizon: medium Lower transaction friction and clearer dispute resolution for firms and consumers interacting with digital assets (custody, insolvency, enforcement).
Unknown How quickly market practices, standard contracts and court decisions converge on consistent treatment across different asset types.

Costs & funding: Minimal direct public spending; private legal/compliance work to update contracts and policies.

Distributional effects: Benefits concentrate in sectors building on digital assets (finance, tech, legal services); downstream consumer impacts depend on market uptake and safeguards.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legal Cross-border inconsistency remains a constraint for global markets; clarity on “property” does not resolve all consumer protection and regulatory questions.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-12 Royal Assent; 2026+ impacts emerge through contract updates and litigation.

Outcome score: +1 — Valuable clarity, but most benefits are indirect and depend on wider market/regulatory practice.

Online Safety Act — implementation stance (context summary)

Status: programme Lead: Ofcom/DSIT Start: 2024-10 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Enforce the Online Safety Act with a focus on protecting children and increasing transparency, while managing real trade-offs (privacy, free expression, and technical feasibility). A separate note in this report set explains the full timeline and debates.

Mechanism(s): Ofcom codes of practice, age-assurance guidance, transparency duties and enforcement investigations; staged commencement through 2025–26.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: safety Horizon: short First Ofcom codes published; major platforms have started rolling out age checks and content labelling in response.
Impact: proven Area: safety Horizon: short Ofcom begins publishing industry bulletins summarising early compliance signals and where enforcement focus is sharpening.
Impact: proven Area: safety Horizon: short First reported Online Safety Act fine (£1m) over age-check failures for adult content, signalling that enforcement is moving from “prepare” to penalties.
Impact: likely Area: safety Horizon: medium Better child protection on mainstream platforms; risk of workarounds (VPNs) and unintended moderation effects.
Unknown Balance between safety gains and privacy/free speech concerns will depend on design choices and enforcement practice.

Costs & funding: Compliance costs for platforms, enforcement costs for Ofcom; benefits depend on reduced exposure to harmful content and better reporting.

Distributional effects: Stronger protections for children and parents; potential friction for adult users in age-gated services.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: technical Encryption, cross-border services, and jurisdictional limits.

Timeline & milestones: 2025: codes laid; 2025-12: early industry compliance reporting becomes more visible; 2026-02: first reported fine; 2025–26: staged enforcement; 2026+: evaluation and code updates.

Outcome score: -1 — Important but contested; now shifting from codes into visible enforcement, with major trade-offs still in play.

Free‑Speech and Online Safety Act Flashpoint

Status: consideration Lead: HO/DCMS/No.10 Start: 2025-09 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): A high‑profile arrest and overseas testimony renewed debate on the UK’s approach to free speech under the Online Safety Act. Government defended its stance.

Mechanism(s): Police operational decisions; legislative framework; ministerial statements.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven International media attention and domestic debate intensified.
Impact: likely Clearer guidance and case transparency can reduce confusion.
Unknown Court outcomes and future operational guidance shifts.

Costs & funding: Minimal direct cost; reputational stakes.

Distributional effects: Online creators, platforms and users; civil liberties concerns.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legal Case law evolution; Risk: political polarisation; Risk: delivery police consistency.

Timeline & milestones: Sept 2025 hearings and coverage; further guidance possible.

Outcome score: +1 — Debate likely to persist; clarity and consistency matter. Maintained national position, didn't buckle to pressure.

2.9 — Devolution, Local Growth and Transport

Scope: Fiscal devolution; integrated multi‑year settlements; locally controlled buses and joined‑up rail; growth funds; skills alignment.

Policy Group Notes

Ridership and punctuality gains from franchising and integrated fares are early signs the model works; track subsidy and value‑for‑money as networks mature.
The single‑pot funding and recyclable growth funds let regions line up transport with housing, skills and regeneration — speeding delivery and reducing bid‑writing overhead.
Rollout will be uneven: established metros move faster than new county deals; the Bill’s “ladder” aims to close that gap over time.
Rail partnerships must mesh with local franchised buses to make door‑to‑door journeys simple (one ticket, capped prices).

English Devolution & Community Empowerment Bill

Status: bill-in-train Lead: DLUHC/Cabinet Office Start: 2025-09 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Give every part of England a clear route to a mayor and deeper local powers, without years of bespoke negotiations. Set national rules so places that meet good‑governance tests automatically unlock stronger powers.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation defining tiers of devolution, triggers to move up those tiers, and a backstop for creating combined authorities where local agreement stalls. Simplifies how funding and powers are awarded, replacing one‑off deals.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: devolution Horizon: medium Bill creates a uniform “ladder” of powers so established mayors can graduate to deeper fiscal and transport powers.
Impact: proven Area: devolution Horizon: short Multiple new devolution deals agreed since July 2024; more areas in formation.
Unknown Timing for county areas to reach “established mayor” status varies with local capacity and consent.

Costs & funding: Mainly administrative changes and re‑profiling of existing grants. No large new central spending line is expected at passage.

Distributional effects: More control for city‑regions and counties; risk of uneven pace if smaller areas lack capacity.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: political Local consent, Whitehall departments aligning on a single model, legal drafting for backstop powers.

Timeline & milestones: Bill introduced 2025‑09; committee/Report in 2025–26 session; staged commencement through 2026.

Outcome score: +1 — A clearer, rules‑based path to devolution; real impact depends on implementation speed.

Integrated Single‑Pot Settlements (City‑Region Funding)

Status: programme Lead: HMT/DLUHC/Mayors Start: 2024-12 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Replace dozens of short‑term grants with a single multi‑year budget for each mayoral area, so local leaders can plan and invest with confidence.

Mechanism(s): Treasury and DLUHC agree consolidated five‑year envelopes covering transport, housing, skills and regeneration, with light‑touch reporting on outcomes.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: devolution Horizon: short First wave of established mayors received integrated settlements, replacing fragmented pots.
Impact: likely Area: economy Horizon: medium Long‑term budgets bring forward complex schemes (e.g., mass‑transit and brownfield housing).
Unknown Value‑for‑money frameworks and local evaluation capacity vary by region.

Costs & funding: Circa £8.8bn over five years re‑profiled to city‑regions, with freedom to move money within envelopes.

Distributional effects: Benefits metros first; newer combined authorities may lag until they qualify.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: finance Programme management capacity; inflation risk in construction.

Timeline & milestones: SR 2024 allocations confirmed; 2025 settlements live; mid‑term review around year 3.

Outcome score: +2 — Gives places stable funding to deliver; success hinges on local capacity and project selection.

Transport Franchising & Local Integration (Buses, Trams, Ticketing)

Status: programme Lead: DfT/Mayors/Local Transport Authorities Start: 2024-09 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Put buses back under local control where chosen, coordinate buses, trams and local rail, and introduce simple, capped fares so people can afford reliable public transport.

Mechanism(s): Use existing franchising powers to let local authorities plan routes and timetables; integrate fares and ticketing across modes; invest through long‑term city‑region transport settlements.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: transport Horizon: short Bus Services Act 2025 became law, widening and clarifying local powers to franchise and shape bus networks and strengthen service standards.
Impact: proven Area: transport Horizon: short Greater Manchester completed bus franchising, launched one brand and integrated fares; early data show improved punctuality and rising patronage.
Impact: likely Area: transport Horizon: medium West Yorkshire and other regions are advancing franchising and integrated ticketing, with staged go‑lives from 2026.
Unknown Long‑run subsidy needs and operator transition costs vary by network.

Costs & funding: Funded via city‑region settlements and local budgets; short‑term transition costs offset by better network design and social gains.

Distributional effects: Bigger benefits for low‑income commuters and areas with poor current provision.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: legalRisk: finance Procurement complexity; potential challenges from incumbents; inflation in operating costs.

Timeline & milestones: 2024–25 franchising completion in GM; 2025-10 Bus Services Act enacted; 2025–27 staged roll‑outs and ticketing integration elsewhere.

Outcome score: +2 — Tangible service improvements where implemented; finances must be watched closely.

EV Charging Infrastructure — permitted development rights reform (consultation)

Status: consultation Lead: DfT/DLUHC Start: 2025-11 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Make it quicker and simpler to install EV charging infrastructure by reducing the number of cases that need full planning permission, while still managing safety and local impacts.

Mechanism(s): Consultation on changes to permitted development rights for EV charging infrastructure (what can be installed as‑of‑right, where, and with what conditions).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: transport Horizon: short Government opened a consultation on permitted development rights changes for EV charging.
Impact: likely Area: climate Horizon: medium If implemented, reduced planning friction can speed deployment of chargers, especially for on‑street and local hubs.
Unknown Local objections (streetscape/parking), grid connection constraints, and whether the planning change is the binding constraint in practice.

Costs & funding: Low direct public cost; compliance and installation costs sit with operators/local partners; benefits depend on faster utilisation and network coverage.

Distributional effects: Can benefit drivers without home driveways if on‑street charging accelerates; may raise local trade‑offs over kerb space and accessibility.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: capacity Planning simplification does not solve grid connection queues or civil works capacity; conditions must avoid “fast but unsafe” installations.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-11 consultation launched; 2026+ depends on response, final rules and uptake.

Outcome score: +1 — Useful friction-reducer, but only one of several constraints on EV charging rollout.

Mayoral Growth & Investment Funds (Recyclable)

Status: programme Lead: HMT/DLUHC/Mayors Start: 2025-04 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Give mayors a flexible “evergreen” fund to co‑invest in local projects (stations, housing, clean industry) and recycle returns into future schemes.

Mechanism(s): Seed capital from central government; local co‑investment; returns recycled; oversight via local audit and outcome dashboards.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: economy Horizon: medium Leverages private finance into projects that otherwise struggle to reach financial close.
Unknown Portfolio risk and governance maturity differ across regions; performance data will take time.

Costs & funding: ~£0.5bn national seed across multiple funds; local match expected.

Distributional effects: Can target left‑behind places within regions; depends on local selection criteria.

Risks & constraints: Risk: financeRisk: delivery Project appraisal quality; market cycles affecting exits.

Timeline & milestones: 2025 setup; first investments announced 2025–26; recycling visible from 2027 onward.

Outcome score: +1 — Useful financial tool; outcomes hinge on disciplined project selection.

Local Skills Compacts (with Skills England)

Status: programme Lead: DfE/Skills England/Mayors Start: 2025-03 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Align training places and apprenticeships with local employers’ needs so people can move into good jobs nearby.

Mechanism(s): Devolved or pooled skills budgets; regional skills plans co‑signed by mayors, employers and providers; outcome‑based funding pilots.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: skills Horizon: short Early compacts redirected funding into high‑demand roles (e.g., green construction, health support) and expanded local apprenticeship cohorts.
Impact: likely Area: economy Horizon: medium Better match reduces vacancies and raises progression.
Unknown Data‑sharing and provider responsiveness across fragmented markets.

Costs & funding: Within existing skills envelopes; potential top‑ups via growth funds and employer contributions.

Distributional effects: Helps young people and career‑switchers in regions with changing industry mix.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Provider capacity; employer engagement; measurement of outcomes.

Timeline & milestones: 2025 compacts signed in first wave; evaluation and next‑wave rollout 2026.

Outcome score: +1 — Sensible alignment; impact depends on execution and employer buy‑in.

Great British Railways (Regional Partnerships & Rail Integration)

Status: programme Lead: DfT/Shadow GBR/Mayors Start: 2025-02 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Create a single guiding mind for rail, work with mayors to join up local rail with buses and trams, and simplify fares.

Mechanism(s): Shadow Great British Railways structures; Railways Bill to formalise; partnership agreements with combined authorities on timetables, stations and ticketing.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: transport Horizon: short Railways Bill introduced, creating the formal legislative track for the Great British Railways model described in the programme.
Impact: likely Area: transport Horizon: medium Unified planning should improve reliability and make multimodal tickets standard.
Unknown Passage timing of the Railways Bill and scope of devolved rail responsibilities.

Costs & funding: Reorganisation costs within DfT/GBR; capital from existing rail budgets; city‑region complements for stations and interchanges.

Distributional effects: Better everyday travel for commuters; supports regional growth.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: delivery Legislative timetable; alignment of national and local priorities.

Timeline & milestones: Shadow GBR operating; 2025-11 Railways Bill introduced; Bill passage targeted this session; phased regional partnerships 2025–27.

Outcome score: +1 — Promising system fix; benefits arrive as legislation and partnerships mature.

Train drivers — lowering the minimum age from 20 to 18 (proposal/consultation)

Status: consultation Lead: DfT/ORR Start: 2025-11 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Expand the pipeline of train drivers by allowing people to qualify earlier, easing a supply constraint that can drive cancellations and limit timetable ambition.

Mechanism(s): Consultation on changing the minimum age requirement for train drivers from 20 to 18, alongside training/safeguarding expectations and commencement timing.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: transport Horizon: short Government consulted on lowering the minimum age for train drivers to 18.
Impact: likely Area: transport Horizon: medium If implemented with safe training standards, earlier eligibility can modestly increase supply and reduce overtime reliance/rota fragility.
Unknown Whether driver availability is the dominant constraint versus rolling stock, infrastructure capacity and industrial relations; and whether recruitment reaches under‑represented groups.

Costs & funding: Training costs sit with operators and the sector; any safety assurance and oversight changes affect regulator capacity.

Distributional effects: Benefits concentrate on would‑be drivers aged 18–19 and passengers on services sensitive to driver availability.

Risks & constraints: Risk: safetyRisk: delivery Safety case, training quality and fatigue management must remain robust; public confidence may be sensitive to incidents.

Timeline & milestones: Consultation launched 2025-11; proposed commencement described as 2026-06-30 (subject to final decision).

Outcome score: +1 — A pragmatic supply-side lever if safety and training standards are maintained.

2.10 — Business Environment and Labour Market

Scope: The business-facing reforms that shape how easy it is to run a company in the UK — especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), sole traders, and contractors.

Policy Group Notes

Cash‑flow: The late‑payments law (card 1) is the fast lever; it works best if the Small Business Commissioner uses new audit and fine powers from day one.
Cost base: NLW uplifts (card 5) increase wage bills but are partly offset by the Employment Allowance and rates relief; this cushion is most valuable for micro‑businesses.
Compliance: Digital filing (card 3) modernises records but adds recurring software/agent costs for the smallest firms; regulatory simplification (card 6) should be targeted to claw back some of this time and money.
Finance: Where cash is still tight, the British Business Bank and Start Up Loans (card 2) give founders and small firms practical routes to capital.
Worker security: The Employment Rights Act 2025 (card 4) changes scheduling and dismissal rules; phased guidance can reduce friction for very small employers (link to regulator toolkits and standard contracts).

Late Payments Reform ("Time to Pay Up")

Status: bill-in-train Lead: Department for Business and Trade (DBT) / Small Business Commissioner (SBC) Start: 2025-07 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Stop big firms paying small suppliers months late. Get cash moving on time so SMEs don’t need to act like banks for their customers.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation; legal cap on payment terms (targeting 60 days then 45 days); mandatory interest on late invoices; new SBC powers to audit payment practices and fine repeat offenders; annual board‑level reporting of payment performance; stronger government prompt‑payment rules in public procurement.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: business Horizon: short Tighter terms could reduce average days‑to‑pay and cut overdue receivables for SMEs by a material margin.
Impact: hypothetical Area: economy Horizon: medium Culture change and enforcement could unlock billions in working capital across supply chains.
Unknown Real‑world deterrence depends on early, visible fines and closing “disputed invoice” loopholes.

Costs & funding: Compliance and reporting costs for large firms; set‑up and running costs for SBC enforcement (publicly funded).

Distributional effects: Benefits micro‑businesses and SMEs (better cash flow, fewer insolvencies); limited direct effect for consumers.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: political If audits and penalties are slow, behaviour may snap back; some firms may rebadge invoices as “in dispute.”

Timeline & milestones: Bill passage; SBC guidance published within months; first test audits and penalties within 6–12 months of commencement.

Outcome score: +1 — High‑potential SME support; success hinges on visible, consistent enforcement.

Small Business Finance Boost (British Business Bank & Start Up Loans)

Status: programme Lead: HM Treasury (HMT) / DBT / British Business Bank (BBB) Start: 2025-07 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Make it easier for founders and small firms to get affordable finance to start, grow, and invest — especially outside London and the South East.

Mechanism(s): Expansion of Start Up Loans (government‑backed, low‑interest loans for new businesses); larger guarantee capacity for the British Business Bank’s schemes that share risk with lenders; regional investment funds.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: business Horizon: short Additional loan tranches and guarantee headroom increase the number of SMEs funded.
Impact: likely Area: economy Horizon: medium Better access to finance supports survival and growth of young firms in weaker local credit markets.
Unknown Take‑up can lag without outreach and templates for very small firms with limited collateral.

Costs & funding: Exchequer cost is mainly guarantee fees and expected losses; benefits include higher business formation and investment.

Distributional effects: Stronger impact for regions with historically tight lending; boosts first‑time and under‑represented founders.

Risks & constraints: Risk: finance Credit risk in downturns; administrative burden may deter the smallest traders.

Timeline & milestones: New funding windows open in 2025/26; regional funds scale over 2026.

Outcome score: +1 — Practical help where bank lending is scarce; delivery depends on lender participation and founder awareness.

Companies House & HMRC Filing Changes (Software‑only, CATO closure, MTD expansion)

Status: administrative/secondary Lead: Companies House / HMRC / HMT Start: 2025-03 (notice); 2026-04 (effective for CATO closure) Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Digitise company accounts and tax returns, reduce error and fraud, and close the tax gap — but at the cost of new software and admin for the small businesses.

Mechanism(s): Mandated software filing at Companies House; closure of HMRC’s free Company Accounts and Tax Online (CATO) service from April 2026; “Making Tax Digital” (MTD) for Income Tax extended to more sole traders/landlords in phases (thresholds stepping down to ~£20k by 2028); tougher late‑filing penalties; stronger HMRC enforcement.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: business Horizon: short Removal of free filing channels means many micro‑companies must buy software or hire accountants.
Impact: likely Area: economy Horizon: medium Digital records can reduce errors and speed up compliance checks.
Unknown Net effect on business formation and self‑employment given added costs/time.

Costs & funding: Ongoing software subscriptions and accountancy fees for very small entities; HMRC and Companies House bear platform and enforcement costs.

Distributional effects: Disproportionate burden on sole traders, “one‑person companies,” and low‑turnover landlords; negligible impact on large corporates already digital.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: data-gap Digital exclusion and rollout complexity may require phasing/deferrals; clarity needed on micro‑entity exemptions.

Timeline & milestones: 2025 guidance; CATO closes 2026‑04; MTD phases in 2026/27/28; penalty regime already tightened.

Outcome score: −1 — Modernisation has benefits, but raises costs and admin for the smallest firms unless mitigations land well. Postponed for businesses under £10m

Employment Rights Act 2025 (Day‑one rights, zero‑hours curbs, fire‑and‑rehire)

Status: enacted Lead: DBT / Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Start: 2025-12 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Improve job security and predictability — especially for people on zero‑hours or precarious contracts — while keeping clear routes to hire flexibly.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation enacted in late‑2025, with staged commencement through 2026+ to phase in day‑one protection against unfair dismissal; curb “fire‑and‑rehire” misuse; require reasonable notice, compensation for cancelled shifts, and contracts that reflect actual hours worked; strengthen sick/parental/flexible work rights; and update codes of practice plus tribunal/enforcement routes.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: labour-market Horizon: short Act received Royal Assent (status shift from “planned reform” to “live implementation programme”).
Impact: likely Area: labour-market Horizon: medium Around one million workers could see more predictable hours and income.
Impact: hypothetical Area: economy Horizon: medium Better security may aid productivity and retention, offsetting some employer cost.
Unknown Business adaptation costs and the effect on very small employers until secondary rules are final.

Costs & funding: Compliance and potential staffing cost increases for some employers; minimal direct Exchequer cost beyond enforcement.

Distributional effects: Gains for low‑paid and shift‑based workers; costs concentrated in sectors with variable demand (hospitality, retail, care).

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Complex phasing and sector variation; risk of fewer entry‑level opportunities if poorly implemented.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-12 Royal Assent; 2026 staged commencement with employer/worker guidance; 2026–27+ main provisions take effect as secondary rules and enforcement capacity mature.

Outcome score: +1 — Sensible protections if phased well; watch administrative load on micro‑employers.

Fair Work Agency — enforcement architecture (planned launch)

Status: scheduled Lead: DBT Start: 2026-02 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Make employment rights “real” by creating a single, visible enforcement body that can help employers comply and pursue bad actors, rather than relying primarily on individuals bringing tribunal claims.

Mechanism(s): Government sets out the Fair Work Agency’s remit and planned go‑live timetable, bringing together enforcement functions for core workplace rights and publishing compliance guidance/tools for employers.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: labour-market Horizon: short Launch timetable and remit published as part of the implementation push for the new employment rights framework.
Impact: likely Area: labour-market Horizon: medium More consistent enforcement and clearer guidance should raise compliance and reduce underpayment/abuse, especially where workers are least able to self‑enforce.
Unknown Whether resourcing and investigative powers match expectations; risk of a “soft” agency that mainly advises without deterring deliberate violators.

Costs & funding: Public funding for staffing, investigations and guidance; some compliance time for employers adapting to new tools and expectations.

Distributional effects: Strongest benefits for low‑paid and precarious workers; improved clarity helps smaller employers that lack HR/legal capacity.

Risks & constraints: Risk: capacityRisk: delivery Enforcement effectiveness depends on data access, powers, staffing and coordination with HMRC and regulators.

Timeline & milestones: Planned go‑live described for early‑2026; ramp‑up of investigations and guidance expected through 2026.

Outcome score: +1 — High leverage if properly powered and staffed; otherwise risks becoming mostly a helpline.

National Living Wage (NLW) Uplift and Small‑Employer Offsets

Status: enacted Lead: HMT / DBT Start: 2025-04 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Raise the wage floor for lower‑paid workers, while cushioning the impact on small employers through tax and rate reliefs.

Mechanism(s): NLW increased (toward two‑thirds of median pay); Employment Allowance raised (cuts employer National Insurance bills for small firms); temporary 75% business‑rates relief continued for retail, hospitality and leisure; limited support for very small employers on auto‑enrolment pension changes.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: labour-market Horizon: short Millions of workers see pay rises; many micro‑employers pay less in National Insurance due to the allowance increase.
Impact: hypothetical Area: economy Horizon: short Net employment effects depend on margins and demand; offsets aim to prevent job losses.
Unknown Price pass‑through for consumer‑facing sectors; effect on firm survival in weak local markets.

Costs & funding: Fiscal cost via the Employment Allowance and business‑rates relief; potential revenue effects from slower profit growth.

Distributional effects: Clear gains for low‑paid workers; relief targeted at the smallest and most exposed sectors.

Risks & constraints: Risk: finance Thin‑margin firms may still struggle where demand is weak or rents are high.

Timeline & milestones: NLW/allowance changes from April 2025; rates relief through 2025/26; review in the next Budget.

Outcome score: +1 — Material boost to low pay with sensible cushions for micro‑firms; monitor closures in high‑cost areas.

Agricultural Property Relief Cap (Inheritance Tax Reform)

Status: enacted Lead: HMT/DEFRA Start: 2024-10 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Increase tax fairness by capping Agricultural Property Relief (APR) so very large estates pay some inheritance tax, while typical family farms remain protected.

Mechanism(s): Finance Act changes from April 2026: 100% relief on first £1m of qualifying agricultural/business property per estate (effectively £2m for a couple); 50% relief above that; option to pay over 10 years.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: fiscal Raises revenue mainly from the largest estates; small/mid farms broadly shielded.
Impact: likely Area: rural Sector concern about liquidity and investment; politics sensitive.
Unknown Land sales/valuation effects and corporate consolidation risks.

Costs & funding: Administrative costs for HMRC; expected revenue increase by 2030.

Distributional effects: Higher liabilities for very large estates; little change for typical family farms; possible opportunities for new entrants if land circulates.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political rural backlash; Risk: market timing effects on land prices; Risk: compliance avoidance/loopholes.

Timeline & milestones: Oct 2024 announcement; Finance Act 2024; in force Apr 2026; monitor first probate cases 2026–27.

Outcome score: 0 — Fairer in principle; delivery optics and rural impacts to watch.

Regulatory Simplification for Small Firms (targeted red‑tape cuts)

Status: programme Lead: Cabinet Office / DBT / DSIT Start: 2024-11 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Reduce paperwork that adds little value for small businesses, while keeping real consumer and safety protections.

Mechanism(s): “One‑in‑two‑out” approach for SME‑targeted rules; raising thresholds (e.g., for some reporting duties); simpler data protection checklists for firms under ~50 employees; pruning legacy requirements with low safety value; guidance to regulators on proportionate enforcement.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: business Horizon: medium Aggregate admin‑time savings across hundreds of thousands of small firms.
Impact: hypothetical Area: economy Horizon: medium Frees up owner time for sales and operations rather than paperwork.
Unknown Quality impacts if thresholds are set too high or rules over‑pruned.

Costs & funding: Minor guidance and transition costs for regulators; small implementation costs for firms adjusting to new templates.

Distributional effects: Savings skew to micro‑businesses and the self‑employed, who spend the most time on admin per £ of turnover.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: political Risk of challenge if changes weaken consumer or worker protections; need to keep regulators aligned.

Timeline & milestones: Ongoing review in 2024/25; staged guidance and secondary legislation through 2025/26.

Outcome score: +1 — Helpful if kept focused on genuine overheads; avoid cutting protections by accident.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill — modernising support powers (introduced)

Status: bill Lead: DBT/HMT Start: 2025-11 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Give government an updated legal toolkit to provide targeted financial support to strategic industries and export activity, as part of the wider growth/industrial strategy agenda.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation introduced to Parliament to set and/or widen powers for financial assistance (e.g., grants, loans, guarantees) for industry and exports, with the detailed shape determined through the bill’s passage and any subsequent schemes.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: business Horizon: short Bill introduced (formalising the policy track for new assistance powers).
Impact: likely Area: economy Horizon: medium More flexible support instruments can help crowd in private finance for priority sectors and export growth (if schemes are disciplined and transparent).
Unknown Whether the bill delivers genuinely new capability versus re-labelling existing powers; and how guardrails prevent low‑value subsidy.

Costs & funding: Depends on the scale of any assistance programmes enabled; administrative costs for scheme design and monitoring.

Distributional effects: Benefits concentrate in supported sectors/regions; risk of perceived unfairness if selection criteria are unclear.

Risks & constraints: Risk: governanceRisk: value-for-money Weak appraisal or politicised allocation can reduce impact; transparency and evaluation matter.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-11 introduced; 2026+ depends on passage and scheme launch.

Outcome score: +1 — Potentially useful lever, but quality depends on guardrails and programme design.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Act 2025 — liability and indemnities for UK launches

Status: enacted Lead: DSIT / UK Space Agency Start: 2025-12 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Support a viable UK launch sector by clarifying how liabilities and indemnities work for spaceflight activities, reducing deal friction and improving insurability.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation setting the indemnities/liability framework for space industry activities, intended to make licensing and commercial arrangements more workable.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: industry Horizon: short Act received Royal Assent (legal status change).
Impact: likely Area: economy Horizon: medium Clearer liability rules can help attract investment and contracts into UK launch and related supply chains.
Unknown Whether regulatory certainty is the binding constraint versus market demand, launch cadence and range infrastructure.

Costs & funding: Mostly legal/regulatory implementation; any fiscal exposure depends on how indemnities are structured in practice.

Distributional effects: Concentrated benefits in space clusters and supply chains; limited direct effect for most SMEs outside the sector.

Risks & constraints: Risk: marketRisk: delivery Sector is sensitive to launch success rates and global competition; indemnity design must avoid creating unmanaged public risk.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-12 Royal Assent; 2026+ impacts emerge via licensing and commercial deals.

Outcome score: +1 — Helpful regulatory enabling move for a niche sector; outcomes depend on market delivery.

UK–India Free Trade Agreement (FTA)

Status: enacted Lead: DBT/FCDO Start: 2025-05 (negotiations concluded); signed 2025-07 Horizon: long

Intent (plain language): Boost growth and ties through a comprehensive trade deal cutting tariffs and easing access for goods and some services between the UK and India.

Mechanism(s): Bilateral treaty (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement); staged tariff reductions; committees to oversee implementation; ratification by both parliaments.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: economy Tariffs cut on most UK exports; projected GDP gains over time.
Impact: likely Area: diplomacy Deeper UK–India partnership beyond trade (tech, education, security).
Unknown Limited services access may cap benefits; sectoral winners/losers.

Costs & funding: Implementation costs for promotion and customs systems; tariff revenue changes; adjustment pressures in sensitive sectors.

Distributional effects: Gains for exporters (e.g., machinery, whisky, pharma) and consumers; pressures for some producers facing new competition.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery ratification/implementation pace; Risk: economic limited services access; Risk: political standards/human‑rights scrutiny.

Timeline & milestones: May 2025 agreement in principle; Jul 2025 signing; 2026 expected entry into force if ratified.

Outcome score: +2 — Significant strategic and economic step; uneven sectoral gains.

2.11 — Justice, Policing and Prisons

Scope: Capacity management; sentencing; victim support; serious/organised crime, protest responses.

Policy Group Notes

Reoffending indicators; custody crowding impacts; community order completion.
Public safety incidents; transparency and communications.
Supporting study from BBB incoming on heavy handed, poorly considered police response and decision drivers
Data gaps: charge rates, court backlogs, legal aid capacity.
Court and prison backlogs are core drivers of pressure; cutting listing delays reduces inflow and length of stay.
Probation capacity and quality are the hinge for early release safety and rehabilitation success.
Protest policing consistency relies on clear national guidance, officer training, and transparent post‑event data.
Public trust is sensitive to fairness and proportionality; publish arrest/charge/disposal rates and independent reviews.
Data gaps: charge rates by offence, legal aid capacity, regional reoffending trends; commit to regular open data updates.

Prison Capacity & Early Release Framework

Status: programme Lead: Ministry of Justice / His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service Start: 2024-11 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Manage acute prison overcrowding safely while maintaining public protection. Prioritise space for the most dangerous offenders and supervise lower‑risk people in the community.

Mechanism(s): Time‑limited early release thresholds (risk‑based eligibility); exclusions for serious/sexual/violent offenders; enhanced probation monitoring; estate repairs to bring cells back online.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: justice Horizon: short Thousands released weeks early under strict criteria, easing crowding pressures.
Impact: proven Area: justice Horizon: short A high‑profile re‑offence led to safety reviews and tighter gatekeeping.
Unknown Medium‑term reoffending vs custodial baseline; probation workload sustainability.

Costs & funding: Savings from reduced prison days; higher probation and electronic monitoring costs; short‑run maintenance spend.

Distributional effects: Less crowding improves safety for staff and prisoners; victims may fear reduced punishment.

Risks & constraints: Risk: public-safetyRisk: delivery Probation capacity, data quality for risk assessment, court backlogs feeding inflow.

Timeline & milestones: Activated winter 2024; monthly eligibility reviews; 2025 ministerial update and evaluation.

Outcome score: −1 — Necessary emergency measure with real safety and trust risks until backlogs ease.

Sentencing Act 2026 — tightening release/sanctions and shifting pressure onto probation

Status: enacted Lead: Ministry of Justice Start: 2026-01 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Increase the certainty of punishment and reduce reoffending by changing sentencing and release rules, while expanding the use and capacity demands of probation and community punishment.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation changing elements of the sentencing and release framework (including how and when people are released, and the sanctions available), with implementation implications for prisons, courts and probation.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: justice Horizon: short Act received Royal Assent (policy moved from proposal to operational delivery).
Impact: likely Area: justice Horizon: medium Changes that increase time in custody or tighten release conditions can raise pressure on prison capacity unless offset by reduced inflow or stronger community alternatives.
Unknown Net effects on reoffending, prison population and probation caseload once commencements, guidance and capacity changes are in place.

Costs & funding: Depends on the balance of custody vs community impacts; higher custody pressure raises estate costs; expanded probation/community enforcement requires staffing and programmes.

Distributional effects: Impacts concentrate on people sentenced and communities affected by offending; any capacity squeeze affects safety and rehabilitation quality inside prisons.

Risks & constraints: Risk: capacityRisk: delivery Without parallel investment in probation and prisons, tighter sentencing/release changes can degrade service quality and public confidence.

Timeline & milestones: 2026-01 Royal Assent; staged commencements and operational guidance through 2026.

Outcome score: 0 — Directionally popular, but capacity constraints determine whether outcomes improve or pressures worsen.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025 — stronger penalties for livestock attacks

Status: enacted Lead: Defra / Ministry of Justice Start: 2025-12 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Reduce the number and severity of dog attacks on livestock by increasing deterrence and strengthening enforcement tools.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation increasing penalties and enforcement powers for offences related to dogs worrying livestock, including stronger sanctioning (with government framing emphasising unlimited fines).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: justice Horizon: short Act passed, updating the legal framework for livestock attack offences.
Impact: likely Area: rural Horizon: short Higher penalties and clearer enforcement powers should strengthen deterrence where enforcement is visible and consistent.
Unknown Whether incident rates fall materially without broader behaviour change (leads, fencing, awareness) and consistent police prioritisation.

Costs & funding: Modest enforcement and court costs; benefits include reduced livestock loss and animal welfare harms.

Distributional effects: Benefits farmers and rural communities; affects dog owners who break rules (or are negligent).

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Low reporting or inconsistent enforcement limits deterrence; edge cases can be emotive and high-profile.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-12 Royal Assent; enforcement practice updates through 2026.

Outcome score: +1 — A sensible deterrence and enforcement upgrade for a real rural harm.

Prisons Leadership & Rehabilitation Drive

Status: programme Lead: Ministry of Justice Start: 2024-07 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Shift prisons from warehousing towards rehabilitation and safer regimes, backed by a dedicated prisons brief and employer partnerships for jobs on release.

Mechanism(s): Minister for Prisons/Probation/Parole; expand education, skills and work placements; more release on temporary licence where safe; incentives for progress.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: justice Horizon: medium More prison‑to‑work schemes and employer MoUs signed.
Impact: proven Area: justice Horizon: short Violence/self‑harm remain pressured in overcrowded sites.
Unknown Net reoffending reduction attributable to the new programmes.

Costs & funding: Education/provider contracts; employer incentives; potential savings from reduced reoffending.

Distributional effects: Supports short‑sentence cohorts and young adults who drive reoffending; regional focus where employers are engaged.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Staff shortages, estate constraints, coordination with probation and local councils.

Timeline & milestones: 2024 portfolio established; 2025–26 scale‑up; annual outcome reporting.

Outcome score: +1 — Right direction; benefits depend on staffing and estate stabilisation.

Victims & Courts Bill

Status: bill-in-train Lead: Ministry of Justice Start: 2024-11 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Put the Victims’ Code into law, improve support and voice for victims, and reduce court delays with modernised processes.

Mechanism(s): Statutory Victims’ Code duties; independent advocates (e.g., for sexual and domestic abuse); data on compliance; listing reforms; pre‑recorded evidence and remote hearings where appropriate.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: justice Horizon: medium More consistent victim information and updates across police and CPS.
Impact: proven Area: justice Horizon: short Court backlogs remain high; digital tools speed some case types.
Unknown Whether statutory duties translate into measurable satisfaction gains without extra funding.

Costs & funding: Support services and advocate roles require sustained funding; digital court upgrades capitalised.

Distributional effects: Helps victims of violence against women and girls, child abuse survivors, and other high‑harm crimes with tailored support.

Risks & constraints: Risk: financeRisk: delivery Funding certainty for support services; IT change management in courts.

Timeline & milestones: Parliamentary stages 2024–25; phased commencement post‑Royal Assent; annual compliance reporting.

Outcome score: +1 — Strong on principle; success hinges on funding and backlog reduction.

Crime & Policing Bill / Public Safety Powers

Status: bill-in-train Lead: Home Office Start: 2024-11 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Update police powers and duties to respond to serious violence, organised crime and large protests while protecting lawful free expression.

Mechanism(s): Clarified public order thresholds; better inter‑force tasking; data‑sharing with agencies; modern slavery and exploitation provisions; oversight measures.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: policing Horizon: medium Clearer guidance improves consistency of protest policing across forces.
Impact: proven Area: policing Horizon: short Variability persists between forces; training gaps identified.
Unknown Chilling‑effect concerns vs actual enforcement outcomes over time.

Costs & funding: Training and guidance refresh; command and control system upgrades.

Distributional effects: Communities affected by large‑scale protests see more predictable policing; civil liberties groups monitor for overreach.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: political Judicial review risks; reputational risk if misapplied.

Timeline & milestones: Bill passage 2025; College of Policing training packages; post‑implementation review at 12 months.

Outcome score: 0 — Potential to improve consistency; safeguards and training are critical.

Police Workforce Uplift & Productivity

Status: programme Lead: Home Office / College of Policing / NPCC Start: 2024-09 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Recruit around 13,000 additional officers and community support staff, and improve charge rates through better deployment and technology. (NPCC is the National Police Chiefs’ Council.)

Mechanism(s): Recruitment campaigns; streamlined vetting; local workforce plans; investment in digital evidence platforms and AI‑assisted triage; performance dashboards.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: policing Horizon: short Recorded serious violence down slightly year‑on‑year; small improvements uneven across regions.
Impact: likely Area: policing Horizon: medium Charge rates to rise with digital evidence tools and specialist teams.
Unknown Recruitment/retention in high‑cost areas; training pipeline capacity.

Costs & funding: Pay, training and kit costs; offset by productivity gains and crime harm reduction.

Distributional effects: More visible neighbourhood policing; benefits higher‑crime urban areas first.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Vetting delays; training capacity; procurement slippage for digital tools.

Timeline & milestones: Annual recruitment targets through 2027; quarterly outcome reporting; mid‑programme review.

Outcome score: +1 — Sensible uplift; success depends on retention and casework productivity.

Public Order Response — Summer 2024 Disturbances

Status: administrative Lead: Home Office / NPCC / local forces Start: 2024-08 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Protect communities and property during disorder (including racist riots) while upholding lawful protest and preventing hate crimes.

Mechanism(s): Mutual aid deployments; evidence‑led arrests; use of public order powers; community engagement to calm tensions; post‑incident support.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: policing Horizon: short Hundreds of arrests and charges following coordinated operations.
Impact: proven Area: policing Horizon: short Concerns over force proportionality and tactics in some locations; independent scrutiny engaged.
Unknown Deterrence and community trust effects beyond the immediate incidents.

Costs & funding: Overtime and mutual aid costs; damage recovery and community support grants.

Distributional effects: Protects targeted minority communities; risk of heightened fear and mistrust if policing is perceived as uneven.

Risks & constraints: Risk: politicalRisk: legal Rights balancing, evidential standards for mass arrests, communications discipline.

Timeline & milestones: Incident‑specific debriefs; national lessons‑learned; publication of data on arrests/charges/case outcomes.

Outcome score: 0 — Rapid stabilisation in most areas; trust hinges on transparency and proportionality.

Protest Policing — Large Demonstrations

Status: administrative Lead: Metropolitan Police / NPCC / Home Office Start: 2024-10 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Safeguard free speech and public safety during sustained large‑scale demonstrations and direct actions, minimising disruption and harm.

Mechanism(s): Pre‑event engagement, dynamic risk assessments, targeted arrests for serious offences, specialist teams for critical infrastructure protection, clear conditions under public order law.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: policing Horizon: short Majority of events pass without serious harm; small number of high‑impact incidents addressed.
Impact: likely Area: policing Horizon: short Clearer conditions reduce confusion for participants and officers.
Unknown Long‑run effects on perceptions of impartiality and rights.

Costs & funding: Significant policing costs for repeated large events; opportunity costs to local policing.

Distributional effects: Balances rights of demonstrators with rights of residents and businesses; communities near routes bear most disruption.

Risks & constraints: Risk: reputationalRisk: legal Accusations of bias; litigation over conditions or arrests.

Timeline & milestones: Regular operational reviews; publication of arrest/charge outcomes; guidance updates following case law.

Outcome score: 0 — Generally effective stewardship; constant scrutiny needed to protect rights and trust.

Proscription of “Palestine Action” (SI 2025/803)

Status: enacted Lead: Home Office / Counter Terrorism Policing Start: 2025-07-05 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Ban an organisation the government describes as encouraging or being involved in terrorism, after a series of high‑damage actions culminating in the RAF Brize Norton breach. Make support, membership or promotion of the group a criminal offence.

Mechanism(s): Statutory Instrument under Terrorism Act 2000 s.3; laid 30 June 2025; approved by Commons (2 July, 385–26) and Lords (3 July); in force 5 July 2025 at 00:01. Police guidance (ProtectUK) issued the following week.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: policing Horizon: short Hundreds arrested for support‑related offences (e.g., displaying symbols) at post‑ban rallies; one London event recorded 522 arrests in a single day. Charge totals are lower and still evolving.
Impact: proven Area: security Horizon: short RAF Brize Norton incident (20 June 2025) caused c. £7m damage to two Voyager aircraft; no reported injuries and no operational disruption per No. 10/MoD.
Unknown Long‑term conviction patterns for Section 13 “support” offences; proportionality findings from the pending judicial review.

Costs & funding: Large policing operations at demonstrations; CPS/courts caseload for summary offences; communications and training for frontline officers.

Distributional effects: Older and professional cohorts disproportionately represented among arrestees at support rallies; civil‑liberty groups warn of chilling effects on protest and free expression.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: reputational Judicial review of the ban (permission granted July 2025); disagreement over whether serious criminal damage without intent to harm people falls within terrorism definitions.

Timeline & milestones: 20 Jun Brize Norton incident; 23 Jun decision signalled; 30 Jun SI laid; 2–3 Jul approvals; 5 Jul in force; 7 Aug national arrest figures noted; JR permission 30 Jul; High Court hearing scheduled late 2025.

Outcome score: 0 — Potentially proportionate response to serious criminal damage; proportionality and free‑speech implications are contested and under judicial review. (Policing of post‑ban protests is assessed separately below.)

Aggressive Policing of Palestine Action‑Related Free‑Speech Protests

Status: administrative Lead: Home Office / NPCC / local forces Start: 2025-07-05 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Enforce proscription law and maintain public order following the ban, while safeguarding lawful protest and free expression.

Mechanism(s): Section 13 (symbols/imagery) and related Terrorism Act powers; large operational deployments; protest conditions; public order tactics; national coordination.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: negative Area: policing Horizon: short Over 1,000 arrests since the ban, including 522 in one day at a London rally; many detainees were older adults; comparatively few charges to date, with numerous cases pending.
Impact: risk Area: rights UN/OHCHR and NGOs warn of disproportionate impact on free expression and a chilling effect beyond unlawful conduct.
Unknown Final court outcomes, disposal patterns (e.g., fines vs. custody) and proportionality findings remain pending.

Costs & funding: Significant policing and processing costs (overtime, custody, file preparation) and court throughput; opportunity costs for local policing.

Distributional effects: Disproportionate impact on peaceful demonstrators (skewing middle‑aged/older); risks normalising arrests for symbolic expression; potential trust erosion.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legal Evidential thresholds for section 13 offences; compatibility with ECHR rights; judicial review context. Risk: reputational Perceived criminalisation of dissent. Risk: delivery Large‑scale operations divert resources.

Timeline & milestones: 5 Jul 2025 order in force; 9 Aug mass‑arrest operation (522 detentions); charging decisions into autumn 2025; High Court hearing on proscription late 2025.

Outcome score: −2 — Disproportionate enforcement against peaceful expression; mass arrests for symbols/words undermine rights and trust, pending court outcomes.

National Inquiry into Grooming Gangs (Casey Review U‑turn)

Status: enacted Lead: Home Office Start: 2025-06 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Establish a single statutory inquiry (under the Inquiries Act) into organised child sexual exploitation, after earlier reluctance, to secure accountability and consistent national lessons.

Mechanism(s): Prime Ministerial announcement; statutory inquiry powers (witness compulsion, documents); chair and terms of reference to follow.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: child-protection National inquiry expected to set clearer standards and accountability.
Impact: proven Area: trust U‑turn responded to intense public and cross‑party pressure.
Unknown Whether new prosecutions or materially new policies will result.

Costs & funding: Multi‑year inquiry costs within Home Office budget.

Distributional effects: Benefits survivors (voice, accountability) and at‑risk children via improved safeguarding.

Risks & constraints: Risk: social community tensions if mishandled; Risk: delivery inquiry fatigue; Risk: political timing and scope disputes.

Timeline & milestones: Jun 2025 announcement; chair/ToR finalised 2025; inquiry launch late 2025; interim findings 2026–27.

Outcome score: +1 — Necessary accountability step; impact depends on follow‑through. Earlier case against doing it was reasonable given the history, but when people want you to investigate crimes against children, just do it, duh.

2.12 — Foreign, Defence and Security

Scope: Defence spending path; posture and alliances; procurement and industrial base; cyber and national resilience; Ukraine and wider foreign policy signals.

Policy Group Notes

Opportunity costs vs domestic budgets: track the balance between defence increases and other services; note mitigation (procurement reform, joint buys).
Delivery bottlenecks: stockpile rebuild times, industrial capacity, accommodation upgrades.
Alliances and interoperability: NATO force assignments, joint exercises, shared munitions standards, and export controls.

Defence spending path to 2.5% of GDP by 2027

Status: programme Lead: MOD/HMT Start: 2025-02 Horizon: medium

Intent: Lift the UK’s defence budget to 2.5% of national income by 2027 to rebuild military capability and meet alliance expectations.

Mechanism(s): Multi‑year spending plans; Spring/Autumn fiscal events; Strategic Defence Review (SDR) alignment; savings and reprioritisations across departments.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: defence Horizon: short Initial uplift of ~£2.2bn in 2025/26 allocated to kit, munitions and readiness.
Impact: likely Area: defence Horizon: medium Trajectory set to reach ~2.5% by 2027 subject to GDP path.
Unknown Sensitivity to growth/inflation—target could slip if the economy underperforms.

Costs & funding: Additional £ per year rising to several £bn by 2027; funded by top‑slicing, efficiency, and overall fiscal headroom. Trade‑offs with non‑defence budgets.

Distributional effects: Defence industry jobs across UK supply chains; opportunity costs for civil departments if settlements tighten.

Risks & constraints: Risk: finance Macroeconomic headwinds; Risk: delivery absorption capacity in MOD and industry; Risk: political competing claims on public spending.

Timeline & milestones: 2025 uplift; 2026/27 step‑ups via Budgets; annual NATO reporting.

Outcome score: +1 — Credible path set; execution and macro risks remain.

“5% security envelope” by 2035 (defence and wider national resilience)

Status: programme Lead: MOD/Cabinet Office/HMT Start: 2025-06 Horizon: long

Intent: Move total national security investment (armed forces plus cyber, critical infrastructure and resilience) toward 5% of GDP by 2035, aligning with NATO’s broader posture.

Mechanism(s): Strategy statements; SDR and National Security Strategy; departmental settlements for defence (≈3.5%) and resilience (≈1.5%).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: defence Horizon: long Signals to allies and industry of sustained demand.
Unknown Accounting boundaries for “resilience” spend; risk of re‑labelling existing budgets.

Costs & funding: Very large multi‑year sums; depends on GDP growth and fiscal choices.

Distributional effects: Widens investment beyond forces to civil protection (cyber, energy security, emergency stockpiles).

Risks & constraints: Risk: finance Affordability over a decade; Risk: delivery cross‑government coordination.

Timeline & milestones: 2025 baseline defined; 2027 interim review; 2030 check‑point; 2035 target.

Outcome score: +1 — Strategic intent helpful; definitions and funding model need pinning down.

Strategic Defence Review 2025 (posture and force design)

Status: enacted Lead: MOD Start: 2025-06 Horizon: medium

Intent: Reset UK posture to a “NATO‑first” model, prioritising high‑readiness forces, stockpiles, and modern capabilities (drones, air defence, long‑range fires, cyber, space).

Mechanism(s): Review publication; force structure decisions; stockpile targets; readiness standards; exercise schedules.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: defence Horizon: short Halt to planned Army manpower reductions; recruitment incentives introduced.
Impact: likely Area: defence Horizon: medium Increased munitions orders and training tempo to rebuild warfighting readiness.
Unknown Speed of recovery from equipment gaps (e.g., artillery, air defence).

Costs & funding: Funded via the spending path; stockpiles require multi‑year contracts.

Distributional effects: Benefits to Army/Navy/RAF readiness; industry workload across munitions and sustainment.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Training pipeline capacity; estate condition; Risk: supply industry lead times.

Timeline & milestones: 2025 review; 2026 force assignment to NATO; annual readiness audits.

Outcome score: +2 — Substance aligns with near‑term risks; delivery pace will decide outcomes.

Procurement and the defence industrial base (buying faster and building at home)

Status: programme Lead: MOD/DBT Start: 2025-02 Horizon: long

Intent: Speed up buying, expand UK production, and anchor key programmes: next‑gen fighter (Global Combat Air Programme), new submarines (AUKUS design), more frigates, drones and air defence.

Mechanism(s): Procurement reform (shorter competitions, spiral upgrades); long‑term partnering with industry; multi‑year contracts; export strategy.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: defence Horizon: short Extra funding for GCAP and additional Type 26 frigates; SSN‑AUKUS design phase funded.
Impact: likely Area: defence Horizon: medium Drone and air defence buys to fill immediate gaps.
Unknown Historic delays (e.g., troubled vehicle programmes) may persist without governance change.

Costs & funding: High capital spending spread over decades; potential offsets via exports and UK jobs.

Distributional effects: Industrial jobs and skills in the North West, Scotland, South West and Midlands; SME supply chain growth.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Complex programmes; Risk: finance cost inflation; Risk: supply workforce bottlenecks.

Timeline & milestones: 2025–2027 contract let; mid‑2030s in‑service dates for major platforms; near‑term deliveries for drones/AD.

Outcome score: +1 — Necessary modernisation; success rests on procurement discipline.

Ukraine support and Euro‑Atlantic leadership

Status: programme Lead: FCDO/MOD Start: 2024-07 Horizon: medium

Intent: Sustain military aid, training and industrial scaling for Ukraine; galvanise European partners and maintain US engagement.

Mechanism(s): Bilateral security agreements; equipment packages; training in UK; multinational coalitions; defence production initiatives.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: foreign Horizon: short Continued multi‑billion aid and training pipelines; regular summits hosted/co‑hosted by UK.
Impact: likely Area: defence Horizon: medium Shift from stock draw‑downs to new production orders.
Unknown US political trajectory; European industrial ramp‑up speed.

Costs & funding: Financed from the defence/aid envelope; some costs offset by joint procurement.

Distributional effects: Strengthens European security; UK industry gains from orders and maintenance.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political Allied cohesion; Risk: supply munitions production lags; Risk: escalation managing thresholds.

Timeline & milestones: Annual packages; quarterly training cohorts; joint statements at NATO/EU fora.

Outcome score: +2 — Material and diplomatic impact, contingent on allied follow‑through.

Cyber defence and national resilience (protecting critical infrastructure)

Status: programme Lead: NCSC/NPSA/Cabinet Office Start: 2025-03 Horizon: medium

Intent: Harden the UK against cyber attacks and hostile state activity; improve protection of energy, water, transport and health systems.

Mechanism(s): Upgraded cyber units; guidance and mandates for critical sectors; exercises and incident response funding; supply‑chain security.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: security Horizon: medium Increased incident reporting and sector exercises; investment in SOCs and monitoring.
Unknown Measuring avoided harm; dependency on private operators implementing guidance.

Costs & funding: Resilience funding line within the security envelope; co‑investment by operators.

Distributional effects: Benefits households and businesses via fewer outages and faster recovery.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Skills shortages; Risk: legal data‑sharing barriers; Risk: finance sustained funding.

Timeline & milestones: Annual sector resilience plans; red‑team exercises; cyber posture reviews.

Outcome score: +1 — Right priorities; success depends on operator uptake and skills.

Forces people: recruitment, readiness and accommodation

Status: programme Lead: MOD Start: 2025-01 Horizon: medium

Intent: Reverse recruiting shortfalls, improve family housing, and lift unit readiness.

Mechanism(s): Pay and bonuses for critical trades; streamlined recruiting; modernised accommodation programme; expanded training days.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: defence Horizon: short Recruiting up year‑on‑year after incentives; early estate upgrades underway.
Impact: likely Area: defence Horizon: medium Improved readiness from more exercises and maintenance catch‑up.

Costs & funding: Personnel and estate lines within the uplift; significant capex for housing.

Distributional effects: Better living standards for service families; improved retention.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Contractor capacity for housing works; Risk: finance cost inflation.

Timeline & milestones: Annual recruiting targets; phased estate refurbishments; quarterly readiness checks.

Outcome score: +2 — Tangible quality‑of‑life and readiness gains if sustained.

Armed Forces Bill — defence governance and service justice (introduced)

Status: bill Lead: MOD Start: 2026-01 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Renew and update the legal framework that underpins the armed forces, including how service discipline and justice operate, and how personnel systems are governed.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation introduced to Parliament. Specific reforms (and their implications for service people, oversight and operational readiness) are defined through the bill’s provisions and subsequent guidance/commencements.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: defence Horizon: short Armed Forces Bill introduced (status change from “planned” to a live legislative programme).
Impact: likely Area: defence Horizon: medium A modernised governance and justice framework can improve confidence, accountability and retention if changes are credible and well implemented.
Unknown The bill’s final scope, timetable and how quickly changes translate into day‑to‑day practice for service personnel.

Costs & funding: Mostly implementation and oversight costs within MOD; any new bodies/processes would drive incremental spend.

Distributional effects: Concentrated on service personnel and their families; downstream effects on force cohesion and readiness.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: legitimacy Reforms that are seen as procedural rather than substantive may not shift culture or outcomes; implementation depends on training and leadership.

Timeline & milestones: 2026-01 introduced; passage/commencement depends on parliamentary time and implementation planning.

Outcome score: +1 — Governance “plumbing” that can matter, but effects depend on details and implementation.

Aid Budget Cut for Defence & Ministerial Resignation

Status: enacted Lead: HMT/FCDO Start: 2025-03 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Reallocate part of the overseas aid budget to increase defence spending towards 2.5% of GDP. Aimed to prioritise security within tight fiscal rules.

Mechanism(s): Spring Budget decisions; keep the legal 0.7% of GNI aid target suspended; reduce effective aid spend from 0.5% to ~0.3% of GNI to fund defence.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: defence Horizon: short Several £ billions redirected to defence budgets.
Impact: proven Area: politics Ministerial resignation and backbench backlash followed the cut.
Unknown Long‑run security vs. soft‑power trade‑offs from lower aid.

Costs & funding: Budget reallocation (no new tax/borrowing claimed); opportunity cost in reduced aid programmes.

Distributional effects: Defence suppliers and forces benefit; recipients of UK development aid overseas lose support.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political intra‑party revolt; Risk: strategic weakened soft power; Risk: international criticism from partners.

Timeline & milestones: Mar 2025 Budget announcement; immediate backlash and resignation; implementation through 2025–26 budgets.

Outcome score: −2 — Raises defence funding but damages soft power and unity; high optics cost.

Middle East signalling: recognition of Palestine (conditional) and export controls (context)

Status: administrative Lead: FCDO/DBT Start: 2025-07 Horizon: short

Intent: Use diplomatic signals (potential recognition of Palestine tied to ceasefire/roadmap) and tighten scrutiny of sensitive arms exports.

Mechanism(s): Statements in Parliament and international fora; case‑by‑case arms licensing under existing law; coordination with allies.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: foreign Horizon: short Stronger language and conditionality signalled by ministers.
Unknown Whether recognition proceeds; impact on regional dynamics and bilateral relations.

Costs & funding: Primarily diplomatic bandwidth; potential trade/consular implications.

Distributional effects: Humanitarian and security implications abroad; domestic political salience.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political Diplomatic backlash; Risk: legal export licensing challenges.

Timeline & milestones: UN/European summits; periodic licensing reviews; humanitarian benchmarks.

Outcome score: 0 — Important signalling; outcomes depend on events outside UK control.

China reset — renewed engagement and contested trade-offs

Status: administrative/diplomatic Lead: No.10/FCDO Start: 2026-01 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Stabilise and improve UK–China relations through renewed senior‑level engagement, while managing domestic and security concerns over values, espionage and economic dependencies.

Mechanism(s): Prime Ministerial diplomacy and follow‑up workstreams (trade/investment, security dialogue, people‑to‑people links). Public readouts set the tone; reported side‑measures (e.g., sanctions and travel/visa arrangements) shape the practical reset.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: foreign Horizon: short PM meeting with China’s Premier set out a “reset” posture and areas for ongoing engagement.
Impact: proven Area: politics Horizon: short Reuters reporting framed the reset as including concrete steps (including changes around sanctions/travel arrangements) with domestic political sensitivity.
Unknown Whether the reset improves trade/investment outcomes without increasing security exposure or political backlash.

Costs & funding: Mostly diplomatic and policy capacity; potential economic benefits/costs depend on follow‑through.

Distributional effects: Sectors exposed to China (universities, exporters, tech supply chains) feel impacts first; national security agencies face the risk-management burden.

Risks & constraints: Risk: securityRisk: political Cross‑government alignment on “engage but protect”; sanctions/human rights considerations; reputational risk if concessions are perceived as one‑sided.

Timeline & milestones: 2026-01 leader-level engagement and readouts; follow‑up agreements and sector dialogues through 2026 (if sustained).

Outcome score: 0 — A realistic diplomatic move; outcomes depend on concrete steps and how trade-offs are managed.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill — legacy governance (introduced)

Status: bill Lead: Northern Ireland Office Start: 2025-10 Horizon: long

Intent (plain language): Reform how the UK handles “legacy” issues from the Northern Ireland Troubles, including investigations and related legal processes — an area with high sensitivity for victims, communities and UK–Ireland relations.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation introduced to Parliament; exact effects depend on the bill’s provisions and any accompanying institutional design.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: governance Horizon: short Northern Ireland Troubles Bill introduced.
Impact: likely Area: justice Horizon: long Any change to legacy investigation/justice pathways will have long-run effects on trust and reconciliation outcomes.
Unknown Whether the bill commands cross-community support and aligns with UK human-rights obligations and international commitments.

Costs & funding: Implementation and institutional costs depend on the final model; litigation risk can be material.

Distributional effects: Victims’ families and affected communities bear the greatest stakes; broader impacts on political stability in Northern Ireland.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: political High likelihood of legal challenge and intense political contestation; outcomes depend on consent and credible process.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-10 introduced; 2026+ depends on passage and implementation.

Outcome score: 0 — High-stakes governance change; the bill’s details and legitimacy will determine impact.

US Politics Entanglements — Interference Row and Outreach Optics

Status: consideration Lead: No.10/FCDO/Party HQ Start: 2024-10 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): A “foreign interference” complaint about volunteers in the US election and later high‑profile outreach to President Trump drew mixed domestic reactions.

Mechanism(s): Diplomatic outreach; party activity rules; media framing.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Complaint reported Oct 2024; later outreach (meetings/state‑visit offer) produced split reactions at home.
Impact: likely Careful messaging can protect strategic interests and domestic standing.
Unknown Longer‑term bilateral trajectory and domestic perception.

Costs & funding: Diplomatic/ministerial travel and staffing; minimal marginal cost.

Distributional effects: Reputational effects; no direct household impact.

Risks & constraints: Risk: international US domestic dynamics; Risk: political polarised reactions.

Timeline & milestones: Oct 2024 complaint; 2025 outreach moments.

Outcome score: 0 — Mixed optics; necessary diplomacy continues.

2.13 — Culture, Sport and Other Sectors

Scope: Sectoral regulators and public-interest reforms.

Policy Group Notes

How the Court ruling and EHRC enforcement cascade into sector policies (health services, policing, prisons, schools). Encourage joined‑up training and clear public communication to reduce confusion.
For tobacco and vaping, pair national rules with local enforcement resources so the intended health gains are realised.
For the football regulator, ensure proportionate rules for lower‑league clubs so compliance costs do not undermine club viability.

Independent Football Regulator (IFR)

Status: enacted Lead: DCMS/IFR Start: 2025-05 Horizon: medium

Intent: Create an independent regulator for English football to protect clubs and fans from financial collapse and poor owners.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation; licensing of clubs; financial sustainability tests; strengthened Owners’ and Directors’ checks; backstop powers to intervene.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: sport Horizon: short Regulator legally established; transition team and chair appointed.
Impact: likely Area: sport Horizon: medium Mandatory licensing expected to reduce insolvencies and improve transparency.
Unknown Interaction with league self-regulation and European competition rules.

Costs & funding: Regulator funded by a levy on clubs; limited Exchequer impact.

Distributional effects: Fans gain a route to challenge poor governance; smaller clubs benefit from minimum standards.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: political Appeals by clubs; ensuring proportional rules for different league tiers.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-06 shadow operation; 2026–27 full licensing in phases.

Outcome score: +1 — Strong consumer protection for fans with proportionate costs; 'Quango' risk potential on feedback, pending implementation

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Act 2026 — matchday safety and enforcement

Status: enacted Lead: Home Office / DCMS Start: 2026-01 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Reduce unsafe and disorderly matchday incidents by tightening the legal consequences for people who enter football matches without authorisation, and by clarifying enforcement tools for clubs and police.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation creating/updating offences and enforcement levers related to unauthorised entry to football matches, intended to deter risky behaviour and support safe event operations.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: sport Horizon: short Act received Royal Assent (legal status change).
Impact: likely Area: safety Horizon: short Stronger deterrence and clearer enforcement should reduce incidents where “ticketless entry” creates crowding and security risks.
Unknown Whether deterrence effects are material without consistent policing and stadium security practice.

Costs & funding: Modest policing/court costs; clubs may invest in access control and stewarding; benefits depend on avoided incidents.

Distributional effects: Impacts concentrated on match‑going fans and clubs; indirect benefits through safer events.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Enforcement inconsistency; risk of disproportionate application if guidance and safeguards are unclear.

Timeline & milestones: 2026-01 Royal Assent; operational practice and any secondary guidance through 2026.

Outcome score: +1 — A targeted safety/enforcement upgrade; impact depends on consistent implementation.

Tobacco and Vapes (Smoke‑free Generation)

Status: bill-in-train Lead: DHSC Start: 2024-11 Horizon: long

Intent: Phase out tobacco sales to the next generation and curb youth vaping, including a ban on disposable vapes.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation; age‑of‑sale “smoke‑free generation” rule; product standards and retail enforcement; ban on disposables; stronger trading standards powers.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: public-health Horizon: medium Disposable ban expected to cut youth uptake and plastic waste.
Impact: hypothetical Area: public-health Horizon: long Gradual fall in smoking rates as protected cohorts age.
Unknown Scale of illicit trade displacement and enforcement needs.

Costs & funding: Retail compliance costs; trading standards resourcing; savings from lower healthcare demand over time.

Distributional effects: Biggest health gains for lower‑income groups with higher smoking rates.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Illicit market; retailer compliance.

Timeline & milestones: Bill passage this session; disposable ban via regulations within 6–12 months of RA.

Outcome score: +2 — High‑value public health reform if enforcement is robust.

Equality Act — Biological Sex Clarity in Law

Status: judicial+administrative Lead: GEO/EHRC Start: 2025-04 Horizon: medium

Intent: Provide a single, objective definition of “sex” in equality law (biological sex), ensuring consistency for single-sex services, data, and safeguarding.

Mechanism(s): Supreme Court ruling; updated Codes of Practice by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC); departmental guidance to public bodies.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: equality Horizon: short Legal uncertainty resolved; EHRC consultation underway.
Impact: likely Area: services Horizon: medium Providers gain clearer basis for managing wards, refuges, and changing rooms.
Unknown How edge-cases (e.g. Gender Recognition Certificates) will be managed in practice.

Costs & funding: Staff time to amend policies and training; limited direct fiscal impact.

Distributional effects: Greater predictability for providers and users; strengthens confidence in women-only services.

Risks & constraints: Risk: politicalRisk: delivery Controversy over impact on trans people; uneven adoption across jurisdictions.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-04 ruling; 2025-06 EHRC consultation; phased implementation through 2026.

Outcome score: +1 — Legal clarity and consistency achieved; sensitive rollout needed.

Trans Prisoners — Allocation Policy and Review

Status: programme Lead: MoJ/HMPPS Start: 2025-03 Horizon: short

Intent: Continue the 2023 restrictions (no transfer to the women’s estate for prisoners with male genitalia or serious sexual/violent offences) while reviewing allocation in light of the Court ruling.

Mechanism(s): Operational policy; case-by-case risk assessment; ministerial review.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: justice Horizon: short Ministers state no trans women placed in general women’s estate during the period.
Impact: likely Area: justice Horizon: short Review will refine criteria and data collection.
Unknown Numbers in specialist units and long‑term outcomes post‑review.

Costs & funding: Staff time, assessments, potential unit costs for specialist accommodation.

Distributional effects: Safety focus for female prisoners and staff; trans prisoners face tighter placement criteria.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legal Individual challenges; ECHR compatibility; data transparency.

Timeline & milestones: Review underway in 2025; updated guidance expected within 12 months.

Outcome score: 0 — Continuity pending review; outcomes depend on final policy.

Gender Recognition Act (GRA) — Reform Status

Status: policy-position Lead: GEO Start: 2025-02 Horizon: long

Intent: Government signalled “modernisation” in the manifesto, but has paused plans to simplify the legal gender change process; current system remains.

Mechanism(s): No bill introduced; existing GRA process continues (medical diagnosis, evidential requirements).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: equality Horizon: short No legislative changes brought forward in first year.
Unknown Whether consultation or a narrower reform will follow later in the Parliament.

Costs & funding: None beyond business‑as‑usual.

Distributional effects: Maintains current barriers to legal recognition for applicants.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political Divisive debate; devolution differences.

Timeline & milestones: Position clarified publicly in early 2025; no bill in current session.

Outcome score: 0 — No change delivered; intent uncertain.

Ban on Conversion Practices (including for trans people) — Commitment

Status: promised Lead: GEO/DHSC/HO Start: 2025-06 Horizon: medium

Intent: Outlaw practices that seek to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, with proportionate safeguards.

Mechanism(s): Forthcoming bill; criminal and civil measures; guidance for therapists, faith groups, parents.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: equality Horizon: medium Clearer protection framework once enacted.
Unknown Exact definitions, exemptions, and enforcement model pending draft bill.

Costs & funding: Enforcement and training costs; small for central government, modest for local services.

Distributional effects: Protects LGBTQ people from abusive practices; clarity for professionals.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legalRisk: political Scope disputes; risk of over/under‑reach in drafting.

Timeline & milestones: Ministers committed to bring a bill “this session”; no draft at time of writing.

Outcome score: +1 (provisional) — Value depends on final scope and enforcement.

LGBT Veterans — Financial Recognition Scheme

Status: programme Lead: MoD/Cabinet Office Start: 2024-12 Horizon: short

Intent: Provide payments and recognition to veterans dismissed or disadvantaged under the historic ban on LGBTQ personnel in the armed forces.

Mechanism(s): Central portal; assessment and payment process; outreach and support services.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: veterans Horizon: short Scheme live; first payments made; scaling promised.
Unknown Case processing speed and total reach vs eligible population.

Costs & funding: Managed within MoD/Cabinet Office allocations; total outlay depends on claims volume.

Distributional effects: Direct redress for affected veterans and families.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Pace of processing; evidence requirements.

Timeline & milestones: Portal opened 2024-12; throughput improvements announced 2025-07.

Outcome score: +1 — Tangible redress; needs faster delivery.

Building Regulations — Single‑sex Toilets (context)

Status: enacted (pre‑2024) Lead: DLUHC Start: 2024-07 Horizon: long

Intent: Require separate single‑sex toilets in most new non‑domestic buildings; adopted before the election but now in force.

Mechanism(s): Amendments to Building Regulations and guidance; applies at design and planning stages.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: building-standards Horizon: short Regulations in force; local planning and Building Control applying new rules.
Unknown Retrofit feasibility and costs for existing buildings; equality impact in mixed‑use venues.

Costs & funding: Developer compliance costs; no direct Exchequer impact.

Distributional effects: More single‑sex provision; design trade‑offs with space and accessibility.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Consistent enforcement by local authorities.

Timeline & milestones: Laid pre‑election; fully in force during 2024–25.

Outcome score: 0 — Context item; effects vary by site and design.

Creative Industries and Public Service Broadcasting — Support Measures

Status: programme Lead: DCMS Start: 2024-10 Horizon: medium

Intent: Support film, TV, music, and games through targeted funds and skills programmes; maintain strong public service broadcasting.

Mechanism(s): Grants and tax reliefs; skills bootcamps; export support; PSB policy statements.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Area: culture Horizon: medium Skills and tax reliefs sustain production and jobs.
Unknown Long‑term PSB funding model and audience reach in streaming era.

Costs & funding: Within DCMS settlement; leverages private investment.

Distributional effects: Jobs across the UK’s creative clusters; opportunities for young entrants.

Risks & constraints: Risk: finance Fiscal space; competition for talent; global demand swings.

Timeline & milestones: Annual schemes refreshed; PSB review points through the Parliament.

Outcome score: +1 — Helpful sectoral support; strategy clarity still developing.

Telegraph sale — referred for media plurality scrutiny (CMA/Ofcom process)

Status: administrative Lead: DCMS / CMA / Ofcom Start: 2026-02 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Protect media plurality and the public interest by ensuring that major media acquisitions are assessed for their impact on the diversity of news voices and editorial control.

Mechanism(s): Ministerial referral into the statutory media plurality and competition scrutiny process, with CMA/Ofcom roles depending on the legal route and evidence gathered during the review.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: media Horizon: short Government referred the proposed Telegraph transaction for scrutiny on plurality/public-interest grounds.
Impact: likely Area: governance Horizon: short Clear process and evidence base can improve trust in high-stakes media ownership decisions.
Unknown Final decision, remedies (if any) and precedent for future media deals.

Costs & funding: Review costs for regulators and parties; opportunity costs from deal uncertainty.

Distributional effects: Impacts concentrate in the UK news market and on affected employees/readers; wider democracy impacts are indirect.

Risks & constraints: Risk: politicalRisk: legal High sensitivity to accusations of politicisation; decisions can be litigated.

Timeline & milestones: 2026-02 referral; review timetable and any remedies/decision follow via CMA/Ofcom processes.

Outcome score: 0 — Correct institutional route; outcome depends on evidence and process integrity.

Holocaust Memorial Act 2026 — memorial delivery and planning constraint removed

Status: enacted Lead: Cabinet Office / DLUHC Start: 2026-01 Horizon: long

Intent (plain language): Enable delivery of the UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre by changing the legal constraints affecting the proposed site, aiming to secure a permanent national memorial with education provision.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation removing/adjusting site restrictions (as described in government messaging) to allow the memorial project to proceed, subject to the remaining planning/delivery steps.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: culture Horizon: short Act received Royal Assent, clearing a major legal barrier to the project’s delivery.
Impact: likely Area: culture Horizon: long A permanent memorial and learning centre can strengthen education and remembrance — with impacts depending on design, governance and delivery success.
Unknown Final planning outcomes, costs and whether controversy affects timelines or public confidence.

Costs & funding: Capital and operating costs depend on the final design and programme; public spending implications are material for the project but outside most households’ budgets.

Distributional effects: Public education benefits are broad; local impacts concentrate around the site (construction, visitor flows).

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: controversy Planning and judicial challenges can delay delivery; governance must be robust to avoid reputational harm.

Timeline & milestones: 2026-01 Royal Assent; delivery depends on planning, procurement and construction phases thereafter.

Outcome score: +1 — Clear delivery unblocker for a culturally significant project; the remaining delivery pipeline is the test.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 — tightening pet import rules

Status: enacted Lead: Defra Start: 2025-12 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Reduce illegal or harmful pet import practices (including low‑welfare breeding and trafficking risks) by tightening the legal framework for importing dogs, cats and ferrets into the UK.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation updating import rules and enforcement powers for dogs, cats and ferrets, intended to reduce welfare harms associated with abusive or non‑compliant movements.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: animal-welfare Horizon: short Act received Royal Assent (legal status change).
Impact: likely Area: enforcement Horizon: medium Stronger rules and enforcement can reduce low‑welfare imports if border checks and penalties are credible.
Unknown Operational impact depends on enforcement resourcing at borders and on evasion routes/adaptation by traffickers.

Costs & funding: Enforcement and compliance costs for border and local authorities; benefits include reduced animal welfare harms and downstream vet/rescue burden.

Distributional effects: Benefits animal welfare and rescues; affects commercial importers and buyers seeking imported pets.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery Without enforcement capacity, rules may not bite; risk of displacement into illicit channels.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-12 Royal Assent; commencements and enforcement practice updates through 2026.

Outcome score: +1 — Strong signal and legal lever; outcomes depend on enforcement at borders and online marketplaces.

2.14 — Cross-Cutting Systems and Trade-offs

Gathers policies and programmes that sit across multiple areas.

Policy Group Notes

This group links the “plumbing” of delivery: planning rules, the power grid, and people with the right skills.
Fiscal rules shape how fast we can move — useful discipline, but they can slow good projects without smart design.
Good data is not just numbers: clear definitions (like sex and gender identity) and open consumer data help people and services make better choices.
Devolution works best when places control enough money in one pot to plan across transport, skills and housing.
Buying well and paying on time strengthens supply chains; enforcing product safety online protects consumers.
With the EU, small practical fixes deliver real value even without big new treaties.
Equality law now needs consistent service‑level implementation so staff and users know the rules.
Widening the franchise depends on easy registration and clear processes.
Cutting backlogs works when surge tactics are paired with deeper process changes.

Net Zero Delivery System — Planning, Grid and Skills

Status: programme Lead: Department for Energy Security and Net Zero / Department for Levelling Up / Ofgem / Planning Inspectorate / Institute for Apprenticeships Start: 2024-07 Horizon: long

Intent: Join up the pieces needed to reach much higher levels of clean power by 2030: faster planning for wind and solar, earlier and fairer grid connections, and the trained people to build and run it. (See 2.1 Energy; 2.6 Education & Skills; 2.9 Devolution.)

Mechanism(s): Updated national policy statements that prioritise clean generation; changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to speed decisions; new rules to manage grid connection queues; targeted training routes (apprenticeships and fast‑track courses) for grid, offshore wind and nuclear.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Faster decisions and earlier grid access bring forward gigawatts of already‑designed projects.
Impact: likely Dedicated skills pathways reduce hiring bottlenecks that would otherwise delay delivery.
Unknown Grid reinforcement timelines are still the critical path in some regions and may constrain pace.

Costs & funding: Mainly network investment (funded through regulated charges or public co‑investment) and modest planning‑team uplifts; skills funding shared by government and industry.

Distributional effects: Construction and operations jobs concentrate in coastal and northern regions; national bill impacts depend on timing of grid spending versus fuel savings.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery permitting complexity; Risk: finance affordability of network upgrades; Risk: skills training capacity and take‑up.

Timeline & milestones: 2024–2025: planning and grid reforms; 2026+: measurable connection time reductions and accelerated build‑out.

Outcome score: +2 — Essential “system glue” for energy, transport and industry.

Capital Allocation and Fiscal Rules (Office for Budget Responsibility oversight)

Status: enacted+administrative Lead: HM Treasury / OBR Start: 2024-10 Horizon: long

Intent: Keep borrowing credible by using strong guardrails (independent OBR scrutiny and fiscal rules), while protecting space for long‑term investment. (Touches all domains.)

Mechanism(s): Statutory OBR oversight of tax and spend events; rules on debt and borrowing; improved appraisal guidance for investment.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Clear rules help hold down borrowing costs by signalling discipline.
Impact: hypothetical If too tight, rules can delay good capital projects (e.g., housing, grid) that pay back over time.

Costs & funding: No direct spend; shapes every department’s budget and project pipeline.

Distributional effects: Indirect — the choice of which capital projects proceed affects regions and income groups differently.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political tension between stability and flexibility; Risk: delivery under‑investment risk if rules bite during weak growth.

Timeline & milestones: Each Budget/Spending Review resets headroom and investment plans.

Outcome score: +1 — Credibility gain with a real trade‑off on pace of rebuild.

Autumn Budget 2025 — fiscal package and delivery trade-offs

Status: enacted Lead: HM Treasury Start: 2025-11 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Set the government’s next wave of tax-and-spend choices and update the fiscal baseline for public service delivery, investment and cost-of-living pressures.

Mechanism(s): Budget documents and policy decisions (tax rates/thresholds, spending totals and priorities), which then feed into follow‑on legislation and departmental delivery plans.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: fiscal Horizon: short Budget 2025 published as a package of policy decisions and supporting documents.
Impact: likely Area: delivery Horizon: medium The Budget resets “headroom” and therefore the pace of delivery across housing, health, net zero, and local government.
Unknown Net distributional and behavioural impacts depend on the detailed measures and how they interact (and on macro conditions).

Costs & funding: Defined by the package (tax rises/cuts, spending totals and borrowing); creates binding constraints for departmental plans.

Distributional effects: Broad, economy-wide; impacts differ by income, region and sector depending on specific measures.

Risks & constraints: Risk: financeRisk: politics Tight headroom can force delivery trade-offs; frequent policy churn reduces confidence for households and firms.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-11 publication; 2025-12 onwards: measures implemented via Finance Bill and secondary instruments; monitoring in subsequent fiscal events.

Outcome score: 0 — A necessary fiscal reset; quality depends on measure design and delivery realism.

Finance (No. 2) Bill 2025–26 — implementing Budget measures (introduced)

Status: bill Lead: HM Treasury / HMRC Start: 2025-12 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Turn Budget announcements into law (where primary legislation is required), providing the legal vehicle for tax and customs measures and related fiscal changes.

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation introduced to Parliament, with committee scrutiny and amendments; commencement/implementation varies by measure.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: fiscal Horizon: short Finance (No. 2) Bill introduced, marking the formal legislative path for Budget measures.
Impact: likely Area: delivery Horizon: medium Clarifies what is enacted versus merely announced, improving delivery certainty for departments and markets.
Unknown Parliamentary timetable and whether significant measures are amended or delayed.

Costs & funding: Determined by the measures inside the bill (revenues/reliefs and administrative costs).

Distributional effects: Depends on the mix of measures and who bears/receives tax changes.

Risks & constraints: Risk: governance Complex bills reduce transparency; implementation capacity in HMRC and affected sectors.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-12 introduced; 2026 passage and commencements depend on parliamentary time.

Outcome score: 0 — Pure implementation vehicle; quality depends on what is inside and how it is administered.

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) — moving from policy to draft rules (planned 2027 start)

Status: bill+consultation Lead: HM Treasury / DESNZ Start: 2026-02 Horizon: medium

Intent (plain language): Apply a UK carbon price to certain imported goods so domestic producers are not undercut by higher‑emitting imports (“carbon leakage”), while encouraging cleaner production globally.

Mechanism(s): Policy design set out in the CBAM policy summary, with draft regulations published for consultation to define scope, reporting, calculation and compliance mechanics ahead of a planned start date (described as 1 Jan 2027 in government materials).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: climate Horizon: short CBAM policy summary published and draft regulations issued for consultation (shift from “announced” to “designed in draft”).
Impact: likely Area: trade Horizon: medium If implemented well, CBAM can protect domestic decarbonisation incentives and reduce leakage risks.
Unknown Administrative burden for importers, interaction with EU CBAM and carbon pricing, and pass‑through to consumer prices in exposed supply chains.

Costs & funding: Compliance costs for importers and administrators; potential revenue depends on design and covered trade volumes.

Distributional effects: Impacts concentrate in covered sectors and downstream users; may raise input costs for some UK firms while supporting domestic low‑carbon producers.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: trade Complex measurement and verification; risk of dispute or retaliation; needs credible enforcement and a workable reporting regime.

Timeline & milestones: 2026 draft regs consultation; 2026–27 final rules and onboarding; planned go‑live 2027-01-01.

Outcome score: +1 — Potentially powerful climate‑trade tool; success depends on simple, enforceable design.

Cross‑Cutting Communication — Explaining Trade‑offs Better

Status: consideration Lead: No.10/Departments Start: 2024-07 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): Many reforms (e.g., welfare rebalancing, OSA, housing/planning) faced backlash where trade‑offs weren’t explained in simple terms; clearer public‑facing material could have reduced heat and improved buy‑in.

Mechanism(s): Plain‑English explainers, early stakeholder briefings, visual timelines and checklists; faster corrections of misinformation.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Better comms reduce confusion and polarisation, especially for complex tech/legal changes.
Unknown Departmental capacity to produce timely, accessible content.

Costs & funding: Low; mainly staff time and design support.

Distributional effects: Helps all users of public services; especially valuable for parents, small firms, and frontline staff.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery consistency across departments; Risk: political pressure to simplify nuance.

Timeline & milestones: Apply ahead of major announcements; track FAQs and corrections.

Outcome score: +1 — High‑leverage improvement with minimal cost.

Planning and Permitting Acceleration (Energy, Housing, Infrastructure)

Status: programme Lead: DLUHC / DESNZ / Defra / Planning Inspectorate Start: 2024-07 Horizon: medium

Intent: Cut decision times for nationally significant infrastructure, local plans and major housing so projects move from paper to delivery faster. (See 2.1 Energy; 2.3 Housing.)

Mechanism(s): Updated national policy statements; faster local plan processes; capacity funding for planning teams; standard, pre‑agreed environmental conditions where safe.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Shorter and more predictable timelines increase investor confidence and reduce project costs.
Unknown Environmental safeguards and legal challenge risk remain a bottleneck if guidance is unclear.

Costs & funding: Higher planning‑team capacity costs partly recovered through fees; project benefits accrue over time.

Distributional effects: More housing and energy infrastructure where plans are advanced; local impact management remains essential for fairness.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legal judicial review; Risk: delivery local authority resourcing; Risk: political local opposition.

Timeline & milestones: 2025: guidance and fee changes; 2026+: measurable fall in decision durations.

Outcome score: +1 — Clear direction; delivery depends on local capacity.

Data and Evaluation Standards (Government‑wide)

Status: programme Lead: DSIT / ONS / Departments Start: 2025-03 Horizon: medium

Intent: Make outcomes measurable and trustworthy: collect the right data (including recording biological sex and gender identity separately where relevant), standardise performance reporting, and open up consumer data where it helps people switch or save. (See 2.8 Digital; 2.4 Health; 2.13 Culture/Equality.)

Mechanism(s): Harmonised statistics guidance; Smart Data powers for regulated data sharing; service‑level performance dashboards.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Open banking shows real consumer savings; extending this model can help in energy and telecoms.
Impact: likely Clearer data standards reduce confusion in frontline services and statistics.

Costs & funding: Modest administrative and IT costs; benefits accrue to users and services through better decisions.

Distributional effects: Gains for households and small firms from easier switching and clearer entitlements.

Risks & constraints: Risk: security data handling and privacy; Risk: delivery cross‑department coordination.

Timeline & milestones: 2025: guidance and pilots; 2026: first new Smart Data schemes live.

Outcome score: +1 — Good value‑for‑money enabler of better policy. Potential privacy impacts.

Single‑Pot Devolution and Local Delivery

Status: programme Lead: DLUHC / HM Treasury / Mayoral Combined Authorities Start: 2025-04 Horizon: medium

Intent: Give city‑regions multi‑year, flexible budgets for transport, housing, and skills so they can plan and deliver as a system. (See 2.9 Devolution; links to 2.3 Housing and site‑selection in 2.1 Energy.)

Mechanism(s): Integrated funding settlements (“single pots”); clear criteria to unlock deeper powers; local franchising of services (e.g., buses).

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Integrated transport control (e.g., Manchester’s Bee Network) improves reliability and ridership.
Impact: likely Bundled budgets speed up place‑based regeneration compared with fragmented grants.

Costs & funding: Within national envelopes but with local flexibility; requires strong local programme management.

Distributional effects: More tailored local outcomes; risk of uneven capacity between regions.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery variable local capability; Risk: finance matching funds for large schemes.

Timeline & milestones: 2025 settlements; 2026–2027: full use in next investment rounds.

Outcome score: +2 — Empowers places to join up transport, skills and housing.

Whole‑of‑Government Delivery and Procurement Reform

Status: programme Lead: Cabinet Office / DBT / OPSS / Departments Start: 2024-10 Horizon: medium

Intent: Buy better and faster across the state: simplify procurement where possible, enforce product safety online, and push large buyers (including government) to pay on time. (See 2.10 Business; 2.8 Digital; 2.13 Product safety.)

Mechanism(s): Procurement guidance; online marketplace safety obligations; “prompt payment” standards in public contracts.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely On‑time payment reduces cash‑flow stress for small suppliers and strengthens local supply chains.
Impact: proven Modern product‑safety rules cut dangerous listings on major platforms when enforced.

Costs & funding: Compliance costs for platforms and large suppliers; administrative savings if processes are simplified.

Distributional effects: Benefits small and mid‑sized firms; consumers gain from safer products.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery enforcement capacity; Risk: political consistency across departments.

Timeline & milestones: 2025: guidance and enforcement ramp‑up; 2026: first fines and prompt‑payment audits.

Outcome score: +1 — Practical improvements if backed by visible enforcement.

UK–EU “Reset” Measures (Trade Facilitation)

Status: programme Lead: FCDO / DBT / Defra / DCMS Start: 2025-05 Horizon: medium

Intent: Reduce day‑to‑day friction with the EU in targeted areas (food checks, touring artists, mutual recognition, potential carbon market linkage) to support exporters and cultural exchange. (Touches 2.10 Business and 2.13 Culture.)

Mechanism(s): Bilateral agreements and technical working groups; domestic adjustments to recognise EU standards where appropriate.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Simpler food safety processes cut costs for exporters.
Impact: likely Easier touring rules support the creative economy and live events.

Costs & funding: Negotiating capacity; minor system changes for border agencies and cultural visas.

Distributional effects: Benefits concentrate in exporting regions and creative hubs; consumers benefit from lower import costs.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political limited scope acceptable to both sides; Risk: delivery agency readiness.

Timeline & milestones: 2025 summit package; follow‑on agreements through 2026.

Outcome score: +1 — Focused gains; depends on practical implementation.

Equality Law Implementation Across Services

Status: judicial+administrative Lead: Government Equalities Office / Equality and Human Rights Commission / Departments Start: 2025-04 Horizon: medium

Intent: Apply the Supreme Court’s reading of “sex” in the Equality Act consistently across health, policing, prisons, education and local services, while maintaining fair access and safety. (See 2.13 Culture/Equality; links to 2.4 Health and 2.11 Justice.)

Mechanism(s): Updated codes of practice; service‑specific policies; training and auditing.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: likely Clearer rules reduce disputes and legal risk for frontline staff and users.
Unknown Real‑world impacts vary by setting; monitoring and feedback loops are essential.

Costs & funding: Training and policy update costs; potential savings from fewer disputes.

Distributional effects: Different groups experience changes differently; careful communication needed.

Risks & constraints: Risk: legal challenge risk during transition; Risk: delivery uneven adoption.

Timeline & milestones: 2025–2026 policy updates and audits.

Outcome score: +1 — Clarity is valuable; must be implemented with care.

Democratic Participation Infrastructure (Votes at 16 and Automatic Registration)

Status: enacted+programme Lead: DLUHC / Electoral Commission Start: 2025-07 Horizon: medium

Intent: Widen participation by lowering the voting age to 16 and introducing automatic voter registration, supported by simpler voter ID processes. (Cross‑cuts education, local government, and digital identity.)

Mechanism(s): Primary legislation and a pipeline of elections administration changes: data‑matching to add eligible voters to the roll; updated guidance to councils; and legislation affecting absent voting rules in devolved contexts alongside broader electoral reform bills in Parliament.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: democracy Horizon: short Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Act 2025 became law; Representation of the People Bill later introduced, signalling continued legislative work on election administration.
Impact: likely Higher registration among young people and movers; smoother election‑day operations.
Unknown Turnout effects depend on civic education and local communications.

Costs & funding: One‑off IT and process costs for councils and the Electoral Commission.

Distributional effects: Expands the franchise for younger citizens and under‑registered groups.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery data quality and privacy; Risk: political consensus on ID rules.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-10 absent voting Act enacted; 2026-02 Representation of the People Bill introduced; phased roll‑out of registration/admin changes targeted ahead of the next general election.

Outcome score: +1 — Structural improvement to democratic access.

Cross‑Domain “Backlog” Playbooks (Health, Asylum, Courts)

Status: programme Lead: Cabinet Office / DHSC / Home Office / Ministry of Justice Start: 2024-07 Horizon: short

Intent: Apply common methods to cut queues in essential services: surge staffing, simple triage rules, extra operating hours, and digital tools to move routine cases faster. (See 2.4 NHS; 2.7 Migration; 2.11 Justice.)

Mechanism(s): Time‑limited taskforces; data dashboards; overtime funding; streamlined processes.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Extra capacity and better triage reduce waiting lists when sustained.
Unknown Gains may fade without permanent process changes and workforce growth.

Costs & funding: Temporary budgets for overtime, clinics and caseworkers.

Distributional effects: Relief for patients, applicants and victims waiting longest; equity depends on targeting.

Risks & constraints: Risk: delivery workforce fatigue; Risk: finance sustaining gains beyond surge funding.

Timeline & milestones: Quarterly progress updates; taper plans to lock in improvements.

Outcome score: +1 — Practical relief; must transition to lasting fixes.

2.15 — Missed Opportunities, Errors and Governance

Scope: This section records notable non‑policy or complex issues — missed chances, sequencing errors, delivery oversights, and optics/governance matters — using the same card format so they slot into the system. These are “considerations” rather than formal programmes.

Policy Group Notes

Governance optics (donations/hospitality) require faster, clearer disclosure and tighter internal norms to rebuild trust.
Consider micro‑entity mitigations on digitisation (free filing tools, phased MTD) to avoid chilling very small businesses while retaining anti‑fraud gains.

Gifts, Hospitality and Donations — Ethics Optics

Status: consideration Lead: Cabinet Office/ACOBA/Electoral Commission/Parties Start: 2024-09 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): High‑profile gifts, hospitality and loans to senior figures (including items retained by departments rather than individuals) fuelled a narrative of poor optics, prompting tighter internal norms and faster, clearer disclosure.

Mechanism(s): Ministerial and MPs’ interests registers; ACOBA advice; party compliance checks; internal bans or restrictions (e.g., clothing); repayment/cessation of benefits; centralised, faster publication of declarations.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Notable hospitality/gift stories sustained coverage; subsequent steps tightened internal rules and curtailed certain benefits.
Impact: likely Stricter rules and quicker, central disclosure reduce perceived conflicts over time.
Unknown Whether reforms go far enough to shift public perceptions.

Costs & funding: Minimal administrative cost; opportunity cost from refused events/benefits.

Distributional effects: Reputational effects for leadership and institutions; broader trust impacts.

Risks & constraints: Risk: reputational Recurrence of edge‑case gifts; Risk: delivery timely, complete declarations; Risk: political uneven adherence across parties.

Timeline & milestones: Sept 2024 onward rule tightening; immediate changes to acceptance rules; periodic publication of registers and committee reviews.

Outcome score: −1 — Legal compliance may hold, but optics harm requires clearer, stricter norms and faster disclosure.

Angela Rayner Stamp Duty Row

Status: consideration Lead: No.10/Cabinet Office/Whips Start: 2025-09 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner admitted she underpaid £40,000 in stamp duty land tax on a flat. She says poor advice from multiple advisers led to the error. She resigned, and is repaying what is owed.

Mechanism(s): Media scrutiny; declarations and compliance checks; repayment to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC); internal party and parliamentary standards processes.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven In Sept 2025 Rayner acknowledged an underpayment of £40,000; said she considered resigning; not dismissed; repayment underway.
Impact: likely Quick repayment and full disclosure may shorten the story, but optics remain poor as opposition calls continue.
Unknown Any penalties and final HMRC compliance findings; longer‑term impact on trust.

Costs & funding: Repayment to HMRC (including interest/penalties if due); minimal administrative costs; reputational cost dominates.

Distributional effects: Public trust in standards; no direct household impact.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political Sustained calls for dismissal and standards scrutiny; Risk: legal HMRC compliance and potential penalties.

Timeline & milestones: Sept 2025 — public admission; resignation announced; repayment process begun; ongoing standards and compliance updates.

Outcome score: −1 — High‑profile error; repayment, resignation and transparency mitigate, but optics are poor. Opportunity to reform the system to make it harder to err/dodge.

Suspension of Rebellious MPs (Party Discipline Crackdown)

Status: administrative Lead: No.10/Chief Whip Start: 2025-07 Horizon: short

Intent (plain language): Enforce party discipline by withdrawing the whip from MPs who defied key votes, to stabilise the legislative programme.

Mechanism(s): Party disciplinary action (whip withdrawal); removal from PLP; possible later restoration.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: party-unity Whip withdrawn from multiple MPs after repeated rebellions.
Impact: likely Area: politics May deter near‑term rebellions; risks morale and defections.
Unknown Net effect on future close votes and party cohesion.

Costs & funding: Negligible fiscal cost; political capital expended.

Distributional effects: Affects suspended MPs and constituents’ influence within governing party.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political public splits; Risk: legislative narrower working majority; Risk: organisational longer‑term morale.

Timeline & milestones: Jul 2025 suspensions; review over summer/autumn; decisions on restoration ahead of next session.

Outcome score: −1 — Short‑term control at reputational and cohesion cost.

Andrew Gwynne WhatsApp Scandal (Minister Sacked)

Status: consideration Lead: No.10/Whips/Cabinet Office Start: 2025-02 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): Offensive WhatsApp messages led to a minister’s dismissal and suspensions of others, testing standards enforcement and party management.

Mechanism(s): Internal disciplinary processes; suspension from party; ministerial appointment and dismissal powers.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Minister sacked; further suspensions followed.
Impact: likely Swift action signals standards but can create turbulence.
Unknown Longer‑term effects on cohesion and public confidence.

Costs & funding: Minimal administrative cost; political management cost.

Distributional effects: None directly; signals to public about behaviour expectations.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political Perception of double standards; Risk: delivery handling consistency across cases.

Timeline & milestones: Feb 2025 dismissal; subsequent suspensions within days.

Outcome score: −2 — Necessary enforcement, but reputational fallout significant.

Ministerial Resignations — Early‑Term Turbulence

Status: consideration Lead: No.10/Cabinet Office/Departments Start: 2024-11 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): A cluster of resignations (transport, city/anti‑corruption, a government whip, homelessness) created instability and narrative risks.

Mechanism(s): Ministerial code and personal decisions; party/ethics processes; media scrutiny.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Multiple resignations across months kept standards and judgement in headlines.
Impact: likely Appointment pipeline and vetting need to anticipate reputational risks.
Unknown Net effect on delivery capacity in affected portfolios.

Costs & funding: Replacement and onboarding time; minimal direct cost.

Distributional effects: Temporary policy drift in affected areas; staff disruption.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political Narrative of instability; Risk: delivery programme delays during handovers.

Timeline & milestones: Nov 2024–Aug 2025 series of departures and replacements.

Outcome score: −1 — Manageable operationally, but optics of churn hurt.

Markets and Communications Wobble — “Reeves in Tears”

Status: consideration Lead: HMT/No.10 Start: 2025-07 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): An emotional moment and a short‑lived gilts wobble sparked a mini‑storm about competence and communications despite policy continuity.

Mechanism(s): Media leak; market sensitivity; comms response.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Brief market and media volatility around the episode.
Impact: likely Stronger discipline and rapid rebuttal reduce amplification.
Unknown Any lasting effect on perceived economic management.

Costs & funding: None direct; reputational risk management.

Distributional effects: Market perceptions; no direct household effect.

Risks & constraints: Risk: economy Market sentiment; Risk: political narrative building on isolated events.

Timeline & milestones: Mid‑2025 coverage and market moves; calm restored quickly.

Outcome score: -1 — Minor but avoidable optics hit; tighten comms, stiff upper lip, understandable human response. Almost ranked +1 but couldn't quite justify it. It's kind of nice to know there are real humans in power.

Local Electoral Setbacks — May 2025 and By‑election Loss

Status: consideration Lead: No.10/Party HQ Start: 2025-05 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): Underperformance at local elections and a narrow by‑election loss signalled headwinds in specific areas.

Mechanism(s): Voter response to local and national factors; turnout patterns.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven May 2025 locals underperformed expectations; later by‑election lost by six votes.
Impact: likely Targeted regional strategies and ground game can recover.
Unknown Persistence of Reform UK surge across cycles.

Costs & funding: Campaign resources; no Exchequer cost.

Distributional effects: Political representation shifts; local policy direction.

Risks & constraints: Risk: political Narrative of drift; Risk: delivery volunteer capacity.

Timeline & milestones: May 2025 locals; subsequent by‑election result later in year.

Outcome score: −1 — Warning light on regional support and turnout. Reflects poor optics and wedge issues more than overall policy, but relevant regardless.

Washington appointment controversy — Mandelson, Epstein links and staff churn

Status: consideration Lead: No.10/FCDO Start: 2026-02 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): A high-profile Washington posting intended to strengthen UK–US relationships became a governance/optics crisis when reporting linked the appointee to Jeffrey Epstein, triggering internal turmoil and a renewed focus on standards and controls.

Mechanism(s): Appointment decision; media scrutiny; resignations and internal rule changes; tighter reporting expectations around relevant contacts and conflicts.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: governance Horizon: short Morgan McSweeney resigned as Chief of Staff amid the controversy, amplifying the story and creating operational churn.
Impact: proven Area: governance Horizon: short Reporting indicates a “tightening” response, including new expectations for ministers to document/report relevant conversations in sensitive contexts.
Unknown Whether the episode produces durable process fixes (vetting, disclosure, conflict rules) versus short‑term comms containment.

Costs & funding: Minimal direct fiscal cost; high political and organisational cost from senior staff churn and lost bandwidth.

Distributional effects: Indirect — affects confidence in standards and the ability to prosecute a coherent agenda; international reputation effects are possible.

Risks & constraints: Risk: reputationalRisk: delivery Unforced governance errors can dominate the agenda; process tightening must avoid becoming purely performative.

Timeline & milestones: Feb 2026 controversy and resignation; follow‑on standards/process changes depend on internal decisions and reporting.

Outcome score: −2 — A major avoidable optics hit with real operational churn; fix requires credible process improvements.

Cabinet Secretary stands down — delivery confidence and leadership churn

Status: consideration Lead: No.10/Cabinet Office Start: 2026-02 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): Government announced the Cabinet Secretary would stand down “by mutual consent”, adding a new layer of leadership churn at the top of the civil service.

Mechanism(s): Prime Minister/Cabinet Office decision; appointment process for successor; internal communications and handover management.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: governance Horizon: short Stand‑down announced, creating an immediate transition and signalling a change in centre-of-government leadership.
Impact: likely Area: delivery Horizon: short Leadership changes at the Cabinet Secretary level can disrupt coordination and slow cross‑cutting delivery, even if temporary.
Unknown Net effect on delivery discipline and relationships with departments once a new Cabinet Secretary is in place.

Costs & funding: Minimal direct cost; transition and recruitment overhead; opportunity costs from senior time diverted.

Distributional effects: Indirect; affects the quality of delivery across portfolios.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: morale Unclear internal narrative can weaken trust; rapid churn can lower institutional memory and continuity.

Timeline & milestones: 2026-02 announcement; handover and successor appointment process thereafter.

Outcome score: −1 — Not automatically harmful, but high-level churn is a real delivery risk.

Budget information security — NCSC review and OBR early-access controls

Status: consideration Lead: HM Treasury / NCSC / OBR Start: 2026-02 Horizon: short

Intent (observed): Repair trust in fiscal governance by tightening information security around Budget materials and early access to OBR statements, after technical and process weaknesses were identified and leadership consequences followed.

Mechanism(s): Publication of a Budget Information Security Review (including NCSC technical analysis and recommendations) and tighter controls on who gets early access and how. Related institutional actions include OBR leadership changes and prior investigations into publication issues.

Key claims & evidence:

Impact: proven Area: governance Horizon: short Government published the Budget Information Security Review, signalling a formal response to the control failure.
Impact: proven Area: governance Horizon: short OBR Chair resignation and prior publication investigations show the episode had real institutional consequences, not just a comms cycle.
Unknown Whether technical and process fixes prevent repeat incidents, given the incentives for early access and the complexity of Budget production.

Costs & funding: Mainly operational (secure systems, access controls, audits, training); benefits are reputational and reduce the risk of market‑moving leaks or confusion.

Distributional effects: Indirect; stronger trust in fiscal governance benefits everyone via lower uncertainty and clearer expectations.

Risks & constraints: Risk: deliveryRisk: governance If controls are too loose, repeat failures occur; if too restrictive, coordination suffers — balance must be explicit and enforced.

Timeline & milestones: 2025-10 OBR investigation published; 2025-12 OBR Chair resignation; 2026-02 Budget security review published; implementation work through 2026.

Outcome score: −1 — Fixable governance failure; credibility improves only if controls change materially and stick.

5.1 — Glossary and Abbreviations

This glossary explains the evaluation language and systems terms we use across the report. It focuses on how policies work, how they interact with other systems, and how we talk about evidence and risk. It is not a directory of agency names.

Scoring and evidence

Outcome score: A simple judgement from −2 to +2 about near‑term outcomes. It can change as evidence grows.
Positive/negative balance: Whether early benefits outweigh harms (or the reverse) at this point in time.
Impact‑proven: Results backed by delivered outputs or robust evaluation.
Impact‑likely: Strong rationale and early indicators, but more time/data needed.
Impact‑hypothetical: Plausible mechanism with little current evidence.
Unknown: A material uncertainty or missing data that limits conclusions.
Opinion: An interpretive statement; we try to mark these clearly.
Time horizons: Short (<1 year), Medium (1–3 years), Long (>3 years). Signals when effects should show up.

Distribution and equity

Distributional effects: Who gains or loses (by income, region, age, sector). Averages can hide uneven impacts.
Targeting: Directing a policy or funding at specific groups or places to improve fairness or value for money.

Risks and constraints

Delivery risk: Can the system actually do it (capacity, skills, kit, supply chains)?
Legal risk: Courts or compliance rules may limit or delay action (e.g., judicial review).
Finance risk: Can it be funded now and later; what happens if costs rise?
Political risk: Consent, controversy, or shifts in priorities that change pace or shape.
Data‑gap risk: Weak, late, or missing data that obscures outcomes.

Delivery mechanics (how things move)

Sequencing: Ordering steps so later tasks aren’t blocked (e.g., grid first, build second).
Pipeline: The staged flow of projects from idea to delivery; often slowed by shared bottlenecks.
Bottleneck: The slowest step that limits overall throughput (e.g., planning capacity, grid connections).
Throughput: How much work the system can push through per period (cases, consents, surgeries).
Surge vs. steady‑state: Short‑term push to cut queues vs. durable process/capacity improvements.
Triage: Sorting work by complexity/urgency so simple cases move fast.
Dependencies: Things that must happen before others (planning → grid → build).

Money and incentives

Capex / Opex: Capital spending on assets vs. day‑to‑day running costs.
Contingent liability: A promise that may cost money in future (e.g., guarantees).
Leverage / crowd‑in: Public money used to attract private investment.
Revolving fund: Money repaid by projects is recycled into new ones.
Ring‑fenced: Funds locked to a purpose (can’t be diverted easily).

Law, rules and accountability

Primary legislation: An Act of Parliament that sets the main powers/rules.
Secondary legislation (statutory instruments): Detailed rules made under an Act.
Codes and guidance: What regulators publish to explain how rules work day to day.
Compliance and enforcement: How rules are checked and breaches are acted on (audits, fines, conditions).
Governance: Who decides, who is accountable, and how performance is overseen.

Planning, consents and infrastructure

Consents/permits: Legal approvals required before building or operating.
Strategic policy: High‑level rules (e.g., national policy statements) that steer local decisions.
Connection queue: Line for access to shared infrastructure (e.g., power grid). Clearing the queue often needs new rules or investment.
Anticipatory investment: Building enabling infrastructure before demand fully arrives to avoid future delays.

System design and organisation

Integration: Joining services, budgets or data so users experience one coherent system.
Devolution: Shifting powers/budgets from the centre to member nations, regions or cities.
Single‑pot settlement: One multi‑year local budget that replaces many small grants, enabling planning.
Franchising (transport): Local control of routes, fares and standards via contracts with operators.
Resilience: The ability to absorb shocks and recover (e.g., storms, cyber incidents).

Digital, data and identity

Smart Data: Letting people and small firms share their own data securely to get better deals/services.
Digital identity (trust mark / certification): Providers meet standards so people can prove attributes (age, right to work) with privacy and consent.
Interoperability: Systems can talk to each other using common standards.
Privacy and redress: Clear consent, minimal data use, and routes to fix problems when things go wrong.

Measurement and evaluation

Baseline: The starting point used to judge change.
Leading vs. lagging indicators: Early signals (inputs/throughputs) vs. later outcomes.
Pilot / trial: A limited test to learn what works before scaling.
Attribution vs. contribution: Separating what the policy caused from what other factors did.

Communications and public trust

Optics: How actions look to the public, separate from technical merit.
Narrative risk: A single incident or storyline can shape perceptions more than the broader data.

If a term is unclear or missing, please open an issue so we can add or improve it. The goal is plain English first, with just enough precision to compare policies fairly.

5.2 — Change Log and Versioning

Dataset refresh (2026-02-13)

Updated coverage through 13 February 2026 (Sep 2025 → Feb 2026 refresh window)
Added/updated big-ticket items across: clean energy delivery (GBE rollout, Local Power Plan, CfD AR7, grid connections/investment), water reform direction, housing/planning (Renters’ Rights Act + commencements, Planning and Infrastructure Act, homelessness plan), workplace rights/enforcement (Employment Rights Act + Fair Work Agency), migration/asylum (Border Security Act + asylum/returns statement), justice (Sentencing Act), and digital rules (DVS statutory regime, Online Safety enforcement, digital assets property act)
Updated the “money and rules” backdrop (Budget/Finance Bill, plus planned carbon border tax / CBAM), and a small number of governance/media events where they could affect delivery

Initial release (2025-09-15)

Adjusted on deeper research of some issues
Styling applied, qol tweaks
Coming soon page replaced
“Short mode” URL parameter ?shortmode

Preview release (2025-09-12)

Released behind coming-soon page for previews.
Outcome matrix removed (could not identify good design for it)
Media narratives removed (media analysis needs more work)
Decisions network removed (promoted to own paper on decision-makers and influencers)
Moved from planning to reports repository
Cleanup junk/stray files
Accessibility and dark mode
Headings/styling

Initial framing (2025-08-25)

We started with a “Sensible & effective / Questionable or poorly executed / Unclear or too‑early‑to‑judge” triage. It helped for a first pass, but it wasn’t enough to capture complex outcomes. We moved to per‑policy cards with a −2…+2 score, evidence tags and distributional notes, with human review on top of automated hints.

5.3 — Known Issues

The entire set of sources was lost on initial import from markdown, and a combination of manual and AI-assisted re-integration was necessary. Some citations are not as relevant to the points they're supporting as the document originally referenced during research but they should always point a reader to the right area, if not directly to the exact correct link.
- Manually connected these, but some links could still be improved.
- Trying to map every claim to a reference that supports that claim has inherent problems. Future work needs better citations linking, especially on hypothetical and unknown outcomes, where indirect connection is implication or suggestion rather than obvious hard-link.
Quotes/takes based on sources are generally correct, but qualifiers and quote accuracy could be much better. A full human follow-up could improve these links.
This is as much an experiment in how AI/LLMs can be used to support the generation of detailed and data-heavy reports in complex fields, and how it can potentially turn subjective analysis into actionable data. Conclusions are not guaranteed to be completely objective, but only as close as we can reasonably expect within the scope of this experiment.
This report is published as an open document, if you can add anything of value or there's anything you don't like, get involved on the github repo and help us improve it.
All policies were reviewed, but people are not perfect (understatement of the century). We do not know everything, if you know better on any policy and want to revise its score, open a PR or Issue on the github with your reasoning.
The primary researcher/author and reviewers are from a pretty narrow demographic window. Could do better in future with the support of more diverse collaborators with a broader range of experience and evaluation criteria. Please get involved on the github.
Clearer language and a better user interface would improve accessibility/readability.
- Finding a balance between naturalistic vs condescending is a challenge, it's not our intent to talk down to anybody, but translating government jargon involves ongoing compromise. Lessons remain to be learned.

Introduction

Scores Summary

Latest update (13 Feb 2026)

Why this matters

Approach

Scoring process

Scoring consistency

Taxonomy and tags

Citations and references

Style and voice

Roadmap and open questions

2.0 — Conclusions

2.1 — Energy, Climate and Nuclear

Great British Energy (GBE)

Local Power Plan (Local/Community‑Owned Clean Energy)

National Wealth Fund (energy-relevant)

Contracts for Difference AR6/AR7

Onshore Wind & Solar Planning Reset

Solar Deployment Fast-Track

Grid Connections Reform

Warm Homes Plan / Retrofit Schemes

Clean Power by 2030 Action Plan

Nuclear Programme (Fleet)

SMR Programme (Rolls-Royce SMR)

Large Reactors — Hinkley Point C / Sizewell C

UK ETS–EU ETS Linkage Talks

Crown Estate Act (energy-relevant enabling)

Product Regulation & Metrology Act (energy-relevant)

Storms and Flood Response — Competence Narrative

2.2 — Water and Environmental Regulation

Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 — Implementation

Ofwat Price Review (PR24) — 2025–2030 Settlements

Thames Water Crisis — Special Administration Preparedness

Environment Agency Enforcement — Polluters Pay

Redirecting Water Company Fines to Local-Led Restoration

Storm Overflow Reduction Programme — Monitoring & Targets

A New Vision for Water — White Paper and Reform Bill Direction

Unified Water Regulator — Proposal to Merge Functions

2.3 — Housing and Planning System

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) — Targets, Presumption and “Grey‑belt”

Urban Density & Brownfield Accelerator

Housing Delivery Finance & Government Guarantees

Housing Delivery Sequencing — Slow Starts despite Planning Reset

Social and Affordable Housing — “Decade of Renewal” Progress Update (Jan 2026)

Planning System Capacity & Performance (fees, staffing, delegation)

Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 — Consents and Delivery Acceleration

Infrastructure Contributions Reform (Infrastructure Levy / Section 106)

New Towns & Development Corporations

Housing‑Adjacent Infrastructure Fast‑Track (grid, water, transport)

Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (Private Rented Sector reform)

National Plan to End Homelessness (England)

High Value Council Tax Surcharge (England, £2m+ homes)

Developer Market Structure & Mergers (e.g., Barratt–Redrow)

Environmental Constraints — Nutrient Neutrality and Water Availability

2.4 — NHS and Social Care Delivery

NHS Recovery: Cutting Waiting Times and Backlogs

Model Emergency Department — High-Performing Urgent and Emergency Care Pathways

NHS England Medium‑Term Planning Framework (2026/27–2028/29)

Ending Strikes and Stabilising the Workforce (Pay Deals)

NHS Pay Review Body Award 2026/27 (3.3%)

NHS Strikes Return and Performance Heat

Growing the NHS Workforce (Training Places and Retention)

Neighbourhood Health Services: Care Closer to Home

Mental Health Act 2025

Modernising Data and Digital Care

“NHS Reform” Package — Redirecting Spend Back Into Patient Care

Accountability: No Executive Bonuses at Failing Providers

Puberty Blockers for Under‑18s: National Order and Access Rules

Social Care: Keeping the System Afloat and Joined‑Up

2.5 — Welfare and Inequality

Two-Child Limit in Family Benefits — retained, with repeal bill introduced

Universal Credit (Adjustment) Act — Base Rate Up, Health Element Rebalanced

Personal Independence Payment (PIP) — Reform Paused and Independent Review

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025

Universal Credit Administration — Debt Deductions and Reassessments

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill (introduced)

Free School Meals — Expansion to All Families on Universal Credit

Primary School Free Breakfast Clubs — National Rollout

Winter Fuel Payment — Cut, Backlash and Targeted Reversal

Warm Home Discount — Continuation and Targeting