The Daily Telegraph website's analysis of the Queen's speech states:
"David Cameron will use the Queen's Speech today to push ahead with a British Bill of Rights in a bid to assert the "supremacy" of UK courts in the run up to the EU referendum.
The Government will today announce a consultation to be held after June's EU referendum aimed at giving British judges the final say on cases involving human rights.
It will recommend that Britain should remain a member of the European Convention of Human Rights in a move which is expected to provoke a split at the top of the Conservative government".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/18/what-to-expect-from-the-queens-speech/ (Telegraph online Accessed 18/05/16)
So it is there, clearly & explicitly, the U.K. Supreme Court's powers will be enhanced (likely to ring-fence significant constitutional facets as discussed in the HS2 case) but discussion won't begin (properly) until after the result of the E.U. referendum.
The debate on the Queen's Speech relating to this significant matter will certainly be worth attention.
Comments
Further Analysis
The Guardian's online analysis of the Queen's Speech includes the following points:
"The government will uphold the sovereignty of parliament and the primacy of the Commons, she says.
And she says the government will implement the powers in the Scotland Act, and establish a strong devolution settlement in Wales.
Analysis: It is interesting to note that she sounds quite non-committal about the British bill of rights, promising to bring forward “proposals” for a bill, not necessarily actual legislation. The reference to the primacy of the Commons seems to be a reference to the plan to curb the power of the Lords to block secondary legislation".
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/may/18/queens-speech-2016-politics-live (The Guardian online, accessed 18/05/16).
In the first point (emphasis added in bold type) there is a policy that supports any enhancement of the U.K. Supreme Courts' powers. Westminster legal (& political, in the public eye) sovereignty will be reinforced if its legislation is given a domestic emphasis. Indeed that gives a distinct practical meaning to the phrase 'bringing rights home' which was used to capture the incorporation of Convention rights into domestic law, more directly, through the Human Rights Act 1998.
Any absence of a Sovereignty Bill is addressed, probably to a sufficient degree for the purposes of the European debate, through enhanced Supreme Court powers & this general policy statement to 'uphold the sovereignty of parliament'. This aspect might be calculated to 'shoot the fox' of Boris Johnson & IDS regarding the topic of sovereignty?
Prison reform may also keep the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Gove, (a central political character in the EU debate) occupied (& compensated?) to a degree that might divide his attention as he focuses on his role regarding EU membership.