Tag Archives: Devolution

Mark Elliott: A “Permanent” Scottish Parliament and the Sovereignty of the UK Parliament: Four Perspectives

MarkThe Report of the Smith Commission for Further Devolution of Powers to the Scottish Parliament has been published. It contains an array of significant proposals concerning the devolution of further authority to the Scottish Parliament. Stepping back from the detail, however, it also contains two — related — proposals that are potentially of constitution significance in bigger-picture terms.

In his foreword, Lord Smith writes:

The Scottish Parliament will be made permanent in UK legislation and given powers over how it is elected and run. The Scottish Government will similarly be made permanent.

In the report itself, these ideas are fleshed out (slightly) in the following terms:

UK legislation will state that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are permanent institutions.

The report goes on to say that:

The Sewel Convention will be put on a statutory footing.

Viewed from a purist legal-constitutional perspective, these statements promise more than they can deliver — but, this post will argue, this does not necessarily diminish their significance.

Can the UK Parliament relinquish its authority?

Saying (as the report does) that UK legislation “will state” that the Scottish Parliament and Government are permanent institutions is not the same as saying (as the foreword does) that the Scottish Parliament “will be made” permanent. An Act of the UK Parliament might say that the Scottish Parliament is permanent, but that will not necessarily make it so. This follows because, at least on an orthodox analysis, the UK Parliament is incapable of legally diminishing its sovereign authority.

The point was well made by Laws LJ in Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), [2003] QB 151. The focus in that case was upon the relationship between EU and UK law, which raised questions about whether the European Communities Act 1972 (“ECA”) was in any sense entrenched, so as to make it capable of prevailing over other, including subsequent, legislation. Laws LJ thought not:

Whatever may be the position elsewhere, the law of England disallows any such assumption. Parliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against repeal, wholly or partly, of the ECA. It cannot stipulate as to the manner and form of any subsequent legislation. It cannot stipulate against implied repeal any more than it can stipulate against express repeal. Thus there is nothing in the ECA which allows the Court of Justice [of the EU], or any other institutions of the EU, to touch or qualify the conditions of Parliament’s legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom. Not because the legislature chose not to allow it; because by our law it could not allow it. That being so, the legislative and judicial institutions of the EU cannot intrude upon those conditions. The British Parliament has not the authority to authorise any such thing. Being sovereign, it cannot abandon its sovereignty.

Laws LJ went on to suggest that the ECA was a “constitutional statute” and was for that reason immune from implied repeal, but that is a distinct matter (to be considered later). Questions about the status of the Scottish Parliament clearly arise in a context different from that which applied in Thoburn, but they raise comparable fundamental issues. If the UK Parliament were legislate to the effect that the Scottish Parliament “is permanent”, the implication would be that the UK Parliament had become incapable of abolishing the Scottish Parliament. Equally, if the Sewel Convention — which provides that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate on devolved matters absent the consent of the relevant devolved legislature — were “put on a statutory footing”, the implication would be that the UK Parliament was legally disabled from legislating on devolved matters absent such consent.

However, orthodox constitution theory — as the dictum above from Thoburn indicates — suggests that any statements along these lines that were inserted into a UK statute would not be legally binding. Because, “[b]eing sovereign, it cannot abandon its sovereignty”, any provision in legislation purporting to limit the UK Parliament’s capacity to legislate would be ineffective: it would constitute an attempt to do the one thing that a sovereign legislature cannot do.

Viewed, then, through a purist legal-constitutional lens, the promises concerning a “permanent” Scottish Parliament ring rather hollow. However, three alternative perrspectives yield rather different conclusions. The remainder of this post will attempt to do no more than briefly sketch those three alternatives in increasing order of potential legal significance.

Political considerations

The first possibility is that UK legislation providing for a permanent Scottish Parliament and placing the Sewel Convention on a statutory footing would be politically but not legally significant. In other words, they would constitute a crystal-clear commitment on the part of the Westminster Parliament to desist from interfering in Scottish devolved affairs. Importantly, however, on an orthodox legal analysis, this commitment would amount to an undertaking not to exercise sovereign authority that would persist in Westminster, as distinct from something that would detract from that sovereign authority. An analogy may be drawn with section 4 of the Statute of Westminster 1931, which provides that:

No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.

The effect of this provision was not to legally disable the UK Parliament, as a matter of UK constitutional law, from legislating for Dominions against their wishes — but, as Lord Denning MR observed in Blackburn v Attorney-General [1971] 1 WLR 1037, ‘Freedom once given cannot be taken away. Legal theory must give way to practical politics.’ A similar point might be made in relation to devolution, its technical legal reversibility being eclipsed by the political difficulty — if not impossibility — of putting the devolution genie back in the bottle.

Contingent entrenchment

Second, it may be possible for a provision in a UK statute that sought to secure the permanence of the Scottish Parliament to be entrenched contingently rather than absolutely. In other words, rather than attempting absolutely to prevent future UK Parliaments from acting inconsistently with such a provision (by abolishing the Scottish Parliament), an attempt might instead be made to stipulate conditions that would have to be fulfilled before the permanence provision could be overridden. For instance, a requirement of a special (e.g. two-thirds rather than simple) majority or a special form of words (e.g. express rather than implied) might be required. However, the possibility of such contingent — or “manner and form” — entrenchment is not firmly established as a matter of UK constitutional law. Some cases — including Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), [2003] QB 151 and Ellen Street Estates v Minister of Health [1934] 1 KB 590 — pour cold water on the idea. Other decisions, however, are more sympathetic, certain of the Law Lords’ speeches in Jackson v Attorney-General [2005] UKHL 56, [2006] 1 AC 262 being cases in point.

If contingent entrenchment were deemed possible, then interesting questions would arise concerning how far this idea might be pressed. Could, for instance, the Westminster Parliament contingently entrench a provision guaranteeing the permanence of the Scottish Parliament on the basis that such a provision could not be overridden or repealed unless a condition requiring the Scottish Parliament’s consent were fulfilled? This would technically amount to contingent entrenchment — it would be a condition capable of being fulfilled, thereby leaving open the theoretical possibility of abolition — but it would amount to a condition so hard to fulfil and so unlikely to be fulfilled as to disclose an effective diminution in Westminster’s authority. This, in turn, raises questions about whether any theory of contingent entrenchment would admit of conditions outwith the control of the Westminster Parliament (compare, e.g., special-majority requirements and requirements concerning referendums or the approval of an external institution).

Constitutional statutes and common-law constitutional values

A third possibility is that the courts might regard a provision stipulating that the Scottish Parliament was sovereign to be a “constitutional” provision. (The courts might instead regard the whole of the UK Act concerned to be a constitutional statute, although, as David Feldman, “The nature and significance of ‘constitutional’ legislation” (2013) 129 LQR 343 shows, the notion of constitution provisions as distinct from statutes makes more sense.) Applying the kind of approach advocated in Thoburn and in R (HS2 Action Alliance) v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3, [2014] 1 WLR 324, this would suggest that the provision in question would enjoy a superior legal status to ordinary statutory provisions. However, at least in its current state of development, the notion of constitutional legislation (or provisions) appears to suppose that any such special status amounts in practice to nothing more radical than immunity from implied repeal. This hardly suggests that characterising the permanence provision as a constitutional one would confer significant legal (as distinct from political) security upon the Scottish Parliament.

However, one of the significant aspects of the analysis in HS2 (about which I have written at greater length here) is that attention was paid to the relationship between constitutional values and statutory constitutional provisions. In HS2, the constitutional fundamentality that was ascribed to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 was said to derive not from the fact that the Bill of Rights was a constitutional statute, but from the normative significance of the value codified by Article 9. The Supreme Court therefore doubted whether the ECA 1972, notwithstanding that it has been characterized as a constitutional statute, would prevail (absent express provision) over the value codified by Article 9.

Viewed from this perspective, a provision in a UK statute stipulating the Scottish Parliament’s permanence might equally be considered to be a codification of the underlying constitutional value of the autonomy and enduring nature of devolved institutions. Significantly, HS2 contemplates the possibility that not all constitutional values and provisions might be equal, and that some might be deemed to enjoy a deeper level of fundamentality than others. A statutory provision guaranteeing the permanence of the Scottish Parliament might well fall into such a category — and, if it did, it might turn out that the practical consequences of its inclusion in such a category went beyond mere immunity from implied repeal. Whether any constitutional value is so fundamental as to be wholly beyond disturbance by Westminster is, of course, an unresolved matter — but the possibility of such a super-fundamental category of values is of a piece with oft-cited judicial assertions in Jackson to the effect that rule-of-law requirements such as the availability of judicial review may point towards in extremis limitations upon the UK Parliament’s authority.

It is of the essence of our unwritten constitution that we cannot predict with certainty how constitutional crises that test the limits of legislative authority will play out. However, it is fair to say that our courts are sketching a constitutional order that is increasingly normatively rich, and which forms an increasingly hostile environment for an unreconstructed notion of the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament.  It would be foolish to assert with certainty that if a future UK Parliament were to renege on the settlement proposed by the Smith Commission, it would — as a matter of law — be able straightforwardly to do so. It would, however, be equally foolish to assert that courts would stop in their tracks a UK Parliament that wished to proceed in such a way. Traditional analysis holds that the hard edges are knocked off the legal doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty by means of recourse to political constitutionalism. However, as I have argued elsewhere, the relationship between merely political and more fundamentally constitutional forms of restraint requires further exploration. There are, arguably, points at which the distinctions between legal, political and constitutional forms of restraint begin to break down — and the more fundamental the norm at stake, the greater is the stress under which such distinctions are placed.

Against this background, the proposal to legislate for restraints upon the UK Parliament — so as to attempt to secure the permanence of the Scottish Parliament — is intriguing. One way of understanding the proposal is as a tacit acknowledgment that reliance upon political restraint in Westminster is no longer perceived — from a Scottish perspective — as sufficient, and that the sort of harder, legal dividing lines familiar in federal systems are regarded as necessary. The difficulty is that grafting such an approach onto a system premised upon the sovereignty of a central legislature is far from straightforward. This problem, however, is one that stems from an understanding of the UK constitutional system that may be getting past its sell-by date.

Viewed in this way, the proposals of the Smith Commission harness what might, in time, turn out to have been the dawn of a new era of constitutionalism in the UK: one that is not content to rely purely upon political constitutionalism as a means by which to contain the potential for excess implied by legislative supremacy, but which instead invokes the constitution itself — in potentially legal as well as political guise — as a vehicle for supplying such restraint. It follows that while, from an orthodox legal-constitutional perspective, guarantees as to the Scottish Parliament’s permanence contained in a UK statute would not be worth the paper they were printed on, it should not be taken for granted that that perspective is the right one from which to attempt to gauge the political or legal implications of what is being proposed.

Mark Elliott is Reader in Public Law at the University of Cambridge. He can be found on Twitter as @DrMarkElliott. This post first appeared on Mark’s blog, Public Law For Everyone

3 Comments

Filed under Devolution, Scotland

Stephen Tierney: Is a Federal Britain Now Inevitable?     

stierneyThe Smith Commission Report issued today promises a restructuring of the United Kingdom which may prove to be more significant than the devolution settlement of 1997-98 itself; the acquisition of extensive tax and welfare powers would make Scotland one of the most autonomous regions in western Europe.

Notably the UK’s economic and fiscal coherence has hitherto been a key factor in allowing the asymmetrical and ad hoc nature of devolution to embed itself without any great disruption to the constitutional structures of the central state. With the dismantling of this system it seems that a tipping point might well be reached for our lop-sided and messy system of territorial government. The Smith Commission proposals, if implemented, will have knock-on consequences for several fundamental features of the UK constitution: parliamentary supremacy, the idea of the House of Commons as a national chamber for Britain, possibly the nature and composition of the House of Lords, and the relative freedom of the UK Government in its dealings with the devolved executives. It is perhaps ironic therefore, but I believe also inevitable, that a process which was designed studiously to avoid the federal question will now bring federalism to the table as possibly the only medium term solution to the deep imbalances which will come with further, radical powers for the Scottish Parliament.

How Does Smith Raise the Federal Question?

Federalism has rarely been seen as an attractive option by the British political class, and its feasibility as a constitutional project for Britain is certainly not beyond question. But some kind of federal solution will surely be needed to deal with two related issues: the extent to which Scotland’s representation within the House of Commons, so far only marginally affected by devolution (reduced from 72 to 59 by way of the Scotland Act 1998 as amended), will appear ever more anomalous as the Scottish Parliament’s powers expand; and the very real risk that as Scotland becomes ever more detached from Westminster, the Union will become largely irrelevant to many Scots. The latter is far more dangerous since it could well mean that Scottish independence is in the longer term now more rather than less likely. If this is true the unionist parties, which make up the majority of the Smith ‘Commission’ (which was in reality an inter-party bargaining group), risk seizing defeat from the jaws of referendum victory.

Viewed in this way it is not too dramatic to say that federalism may become the last throw of the dice for the Anglo-Scottish union: serving both to manage relations between a hollowed out central state and its nations/regions, and giving Scotland a sense of purpose in union as well as a sense of strength in autonomy.

I have discussed the inadequacy of the Smith process elsewhere. I won’t dwell on that issue here except to observe that once again, as in 1997-98, the UK has embarked upon a radical reorganisation of territorial authority on the hoof, formulating powers for Scotland without a broader conversation about what this will mean for the wider UK or for how Parliament functions.

But while from the perspective of ‘winning’ the referendum there was arguably a political imperative to set up Smith (see The Vow), this does not change the fact that the exclusion of the rest of the UK from its deliberations makes little sense. While independence is arguably a unilateral decision, further devolution for Scotland is not, and surely cannot be dealt with only by Scottish politicians determining simply what Scotland wants. The UK Government itself recognised this in 2012. It ruled out a multi-question referendum which would include a third option of ‘devo-more’ on the basis that further devolution would have to be discussed and negotiated across the UK; there was certainly sense to this. But on 18 September this was precisely the alternative to independence which was offered to voters. The Vow in effect meant that those voting No were not choosing the status quo but instead were signing a blank cheque for the as yet unformed Smith Commission.

Leaving process and principle to one side, the substantive consequence of this is that we have yet another asymmetrical process that promises to transfer more and more powers to the Scottish Parliament, making an already very lop-sided system of territorial decentralisation ever more so. On this basis the Smith report can only be a proposal. The UK Government will surely only agree to the increased powers for the Scottish Parliament it recommends if the whole package works to the advantage of the rest of the UK, for example by reducing or removing the perceived Scottish subsidies contained within the Barnett formula. The Smith Commission attempts to answer the Scottish question; but in doing so it in fact also raises the British question: how will the institutions of the British state adjust both to manage these new powers and to deal with the issue of fair representation across the state?

Federalising Britain: Correcting the ‘Representation Deficit’

There is much confusion about what federalism is, partly because of a failure to distinguish ‘federation’, which is often used to provide a very strict definition of the institutional nature of a federal state, from ‘federalism’ which is a much more flexible term, capturing what Daniel Elazar calls the inter-related ‘self-rule’ and ‘shared rule’ dimensions of territorial relations within a state.

From this perspective we can see the lop-sidedness of UK devolution as being all about the grant of ‘self-rule’ with very little focus upon ‘shared rule’; dispersing power to the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without also binding them closely within the institutional structures of the central state. This is in effect a ‘representation deficit’ and Smith indicates that steps must be taken to avoid devolution falling further into the black as it were. The radical levels of tax devolution which Smith presages must be accompanied by a reimagining of the place of regions and nations within the decision-making bodies of the central state. This is needed both to correct unfairness within the system (for example a now more stark West Lothian issue) and to stem the pathology of a slow descent towards independence which might result from a system that offers detachment without any correlating integration.

Here are four questions which must now be answered after Smith:

  • Can further devolution be proposed only for Scotland, without provoking decentralisation across the UK?

An issue that accompanies the lop-sidedness of devolution is its strong asymmetry; what I have called double asymmetry: only some parts of the state are devolved, and those which are have very different models of government.

Each of these two features is likely to change. There are now proposals for strong devolution for Manchester. Attempts by the Blair government to promote a regionalist agenda fell flat but a new agenda, focused also on cities, which promises powers over areas such as housing, transport and economic development might be bolstered also by representation for English cities and regions in a revamped House of Lords (discussed below). Another incentive for regional powers could well be the sense that a Scottish Parliament with tax powers might use these to gain different forms of competitive advantage which should be countered within English regions. There is no mention of English devolution in Smith but it is now on the agenda.

If the powers of the Scottish Parliament increase, Wales will no doubt lobby for further competences if the current trajectory of Wales tracking Scotland’s growing autonomy continues. Federalism does not require symmetry, but in the past ten years we have seen Welsh devolution move closer to the Scottish model and this trend could well continue.

  • Can powers be taken away from Westminster with no impact on how Westminster is composed or how it operates?

Immediately after the referendum David Cameron tied new powers for Scotland to a concomitant recalibration of the powers of Scottish MPs at Westminster. This was shot down immediately by the Labour Party and the Prime Minister back-tracked. But it appears increasingly that this was a tactical retreat. The West Lothian question cannot be avoided; apart from anything else it will be an issue at the General Election next year. This need not mean an English Parliament but it will require a revision of the role of Scottish MPs at Westminster, perhaps along the lines of the McKay recommendations.

Another proposal, which would go some way to deal with the representation deficit, is reform of the House of Lords. Ed Miliband in his speech to the Labour Party conference in September 2014 suggested a new chamber of the nations and regions of the UK. This idea was earlier advanced by Gordon Brown. This would only be feasible if accompanied by meaningful devolution to English regions and cities and again it is not mentioned in Smith. But such a reformed chamber could offer a genuinely union-focused institution at the centre of the state, pushing back against the relentlessly fissiparous trajectory which Smith alone might otherwise deliver.

  • Can the Scottish Parliament become one of the most powerful sub-state legislatures in the Western world with no formalisation of the competence limits between it and Westminster?

Another dimension typical of a federal system is that both the central and regional tiers of government have constitutionally-demarcated spheres of operation. The reassertion of parliamentary supremacy in, for example, the Scotland Act is another way in which the UK has hitherto looked non-federal. But Smith now proposes that the Scottish Parliament be made ‘permanent’ (para 21). Such a move would presumably also extend to the prohibition of removal of its powers without the Scottish Parliament’s consent: Smith confirms that the Sewel convention will be put on a statutory footing.

There are various ways in which this could be done. One is of course a self-conscious reconstitution of the state – reforming the state’s rule of recognition around a new foundational document: a Liberal Democrat report has called for ‘a declaration of federal union’. But this is surely unnecessary. Some arrangement analogous to the European Communities Act 1972, but building in more explicit self-limitations on Parliament’s powers, would no doubt satisfy those who want guarantees of Scottish home rule, without dealing with the kompetenz-kompetenz issue which is still left open post-Factortame. This seems to be what Smith envisages in providing that its permanence will be guaranteed by ‘UK legislation’ (para 21). Another related way to do this would be through a new Act of Union or Acts of Union passed in parallel by the two parliaments. Technically it could be argued that each could be open to repeal (s37 of the Scotland Act 1998 would need to be taken into account), but by another reckoning such a double endorsement could take on an unsettled constitutional status as did the 1706/07 Acts, at least as viewed within the Scottish legal system. Smith also refers to the ‘sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine the form of government best suited to their needs’ (para 20); again, if any such reference were to be included in the preamble of a new statute, this would add considerable weight to the constitutional status of legislation designed to ‘entrench’ the Scottish Parliament.

  • Can a territory enjoying such a delegation of powers continue to interact with Whitehall on the basis of informal and discretionary arrangements?

Another area which has been lacking is any formalisation in the ways in which sub-state executives interact with the UK government. So far devolution has worked through very informal arrangements through the Joint Ministerial Committee system, supported by Memoranda of Understanding and supplementary ‘concordats’. If the Scottish Parliament is empowered to set radically different fiscal and welfare priorities this could put great strain on the system and some form of formalisation may well be needed. This is recognised firmly by Smith. Lord Smith himself in his foreword to the Report asserts that ‘weak inter-governmental working… needs to be fixed. Both Governments need to work together to create a more productive, robust, visible and transparent relationship.’ This is fleshed out in Pillar 1 of the Report which calls for the ‘urgent’ reform of the JMC and a new Memorandum of Understanding to formalise inter-governmental (and inter-parliamentary) relations and open them up to ‘much stronger and more transparent parliamentary scrutiny’ (para 30). The proposals extend also to the area of UK relations with the EU. Smith recommends that Scottish Ministers be ‘fully involved’ in agreeing the UK position in EU negotiations relating to devolved policy matters, that they be consulted before final UK negotiating positions relating to devolved policy matters are fixed, and that devolved administration ministers be allowed to speak on behalf of the UK in Brussels in certain circumstances (para 31).

These measures could also help resolve the representation deficit by again giving Scottish (and surely the other sub-state governments) a clearly demarcated say in setting central government policy priorities in areas of shared concern. Certain issues could be unpalatable for some, for example giving the regions effective veto powers in relation to certain matters, perhaps exercised through the reformed second chamber (a measure that would require amendment to the Parliament Acts). But powers of this kind may be needed to give the union a real sense of meaning to those on the periphery.

Federalism: Feasible Within our Unwritten System?

To conclude, the federal idea is a more open canvas than the term ‘federation’ would suggest. It is flexible and open to a range of institutional possibilities; arguably it does not even require full-blown codification through a new foundational document. Indeed, it seems to me that the UK has been on a federal trajectory at least since 1998 and that Smith can be seen as another stage, albeit a dramatic one, on this incremental journey. But a number of important changes do seem likely to accompany a significantly strengthened Scottish Parliament. For example, we may well see a demand for regionalism in England, a recalibration of the House of Commons, and possibly also radical reform to the House of Lords. Efforts to make the Scottish Parliament permanent will take on a federal perspective, seeming to limit Westminster’s supremacy in this sphere at least; if this occurs a concomitant formalisation of respective executive powers also seems likely as Smith suggests.

Such reforms would both extend and crystallise the ‘self-rule’ dimension of a federalising UK while also offering institutional corrections to the representation deficit. Whether all of this will create a stronger sense of partnership and a renewed sense of belonging to a common union we simply don’t know, but without such a broader set of reforms the Smith process may well further unsettle the union it was intended to save.

 

Stephen Tierney is Professor of Constitutional Theory in the School of Law, University of Edinburgh and Director of the Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law. ESRC Senior Research Fellow, ESRC Centre on Constitutional Change

Suggested citation: S.Tierney, ‘Is a Federal Britain Now Inevitable?’ (27th November 2014) (available at http://ukconstitutionallaw.org).

2 Comments

Filed under Scotland

Stephen Tierney: Solomon Grundy Does Constitutional Change: The Smith Commission Timetable to Transform the Scottish Parliament

stierneyIn the month of November the Smith Commission is set to draw up the most significant programme of constitutional change for the United Kingdom since 1998. Already the period within which citizens could submit their views on this process has passed; the Commission having set a deadline of 5 p.m. on 31 October.

Such a rapid process runs counter to both the due diligence that is surely needed before any decision is taken to restructure the UK tax (and possibly welfare) systems so radically and the due process which ought to accompany such a seminal constitutional development. Unfortunately the principles of deliberative constitutional decision-making and popular democratic engagement which figured strongly in the recent independence referendum are unlikely to gain much traction in the current rush to change.

The referendum campaign was indeed a remarkable period of citizen empowerment. The turnout of 84.7% is only one dimension of this; in a deeper way many citizens were greatly invigorated by the referendum and the role they had in discussing and ultimately in making such a huge decision. The Smith Commission process, by contrast, bears all the hallmarks of a return to elite-led constitutional change; and it is deeply ironic that the impetus for such a rapid and party-led process should be the independence referendum itself. As the 18th of September approached and the polls seemed to tighten, the leaders of the main unionist parties issued ‘The Vow’, promising more powers for the Scottish Parliament and setting out a firm timetable for change.

The day after the referendum Prime Minister Cameron announced that Lord Smith of Kelvin would oversee a process to take forward these commitments, and Lord Smith announced details of the Commission only four days later, on 23 September. The five main parties (Conservative, Greens, Labour, Liberal Democrats and SNP) each appointed two members to the Committee and they rapidly formulated their individual submissions to it (each party had submitted its views by 10 October). On 3 October the public and civil society were invited to give their views, all to be done by the end of that month. This leaves only one month for the Commission to consider all of this material and to produce a cross-party Heads of Agreement by 30 November, with a view to a new draft Scotland Bill by 25 January. This is an astonishingly speedy programme. The UK constitution which has evolved slowly over centuries now faces a potentially open-ended overhaul by means of a Solomon Grundy timetable.

My first set of objections are less of principle and more of prudence. Due diligence surely demands a thorough process to assess the practicalities and implications of changes that pose very real challenges to the UK’s economic and financial integrity. It is not enough to make policy decisions and then complete an assessment of how these can best be operationalised later; the operational difficulties which present themselves in a practical review of their feasibility are themselves crucial in informing policy in the first place. The devolution of extensive tax and welfare competences within such a highly integrated state requires to be tested for their impact both on Scotland and on the rest of the UK. Tax powers were extended to Scotland by way of the Scotland Act 2012 following a much longer and more detailed review. The Calman Commission met for a year and its proposals were extensively debated in both the Westminster and Holyrood parliaments. Even then, the most important tax powers enacted in 2012 (which will in all likelihood pale into insignificance in light of the Smith recommendations) will not be in place until 2016.

The Smith timetable is also odd given that we are heading towards a UK general election. Indeed the plan is to put the Smith proposals on hold after initial agreement is reached and draft legislation prepared, with legislative implementation intended to follow after the election. But surely it makes sense to wait until the election is over before even the decisions of principle are reached. The Smith Commission is of course the result of the political commitment made in The Vow, and for political reasons the parties feel the need to move fast. But this does not seem to be a prudent or a principled way to make such huge decisions. The general election provides an entirely credible reason to set deliberation back until next year. By any measure it is better to do things correctly than to do them quickly. Instead we will have a hastily produced policy decision made by party bartering; the subsequent legislative process will serve merely to implement rather than fully deliberate on the wisdom of the proposed reforms.

And then there is the issue of due process. As a point of democratic principle fundamental constitutional change should be open, inclusive and deliberative if the people of Scotland, and more pertinently the people of the rest of the UK, are to consider it legitimate. This is no small matter. Regardless of how popular the changes prove to be or how well they work in practice, the health of democracy depends as much, if not more, upon the propriety and legitimacy of the process by which they are effected.

The bigger picture is of course the UK constitution as a whole. The Smith Commission is concerned only with additional powers for the Scottish Parliament. But is it feasible to address this issue alone without also considering the knock-on consequences for the entire country? For example, one element of The Vow was to make the Scottish Parliament ‘permanent’, but how could such a constitutional guarantee be made without significant changes to parliamentary sovereignty, the very basis of the British constitution?

More broadly, we were told that further devolution could not be an option on the referendum ballot paper because it was a UK-wide issue, and yet here we are. Already the West Lothian Question has re-appeared as a counterpoint to more powers for Scotland. Should decisions be taken on radical tax powers for Scotland without advance notice of whether, and if so how, these powers may lead to a significant loss of influence for Scotland at Westminster? We also don’t know if this process might prompt a strong campaign for an English Parliament within the UK system, further devolution for Wales and Northern Ireland, a re-worked system of intergovernmental relations, potential issues of compatibility with European Union law (something which Smith says it will address), and even moves to some kind of quasi-federal system, possibly involving a realignment of the House of Lords as a chamber of the nations and regions of the UK, a point raised by Ed Miliband in his speech to the Labour Party conference in September 2014. Scots should know whether the price of more powers will be a radically new constitutional structure within which the position of Scotland is in some ways marginalised. Instead, the Smith Commission in its media statement of 22 October, its last before it went into lockdown to produce its final proposals, asserts both that its proposals should ‘[n]ot be conditional on the conclusion of other political negotiations elsewhere in the UK’, and ‘[n]ot cause detriment to the UK as a whole nor to any of its constituent parts’. There is simply no guarantee that such a unilateral process will not have detrimental consequences for the UK as a whole or its constituent parts, including Scotland itself.

Given the importance of the issues at stake, what then of the democratic credibility of the process? Does the Smith Commission really offer scope for proper deliberation at either elite or popular levels? Deliberative democracy remains a recent and developing turn in political theory, but if we are to try to identify a principle that unites deliberative theorists across a very wide spectrum of differing approaches it is that decision-making is best made in an open and reflective manner, where participants listen as well as speak, and in doing so are amenable to changing their positions.

It is not impossible for the Smith Commission to conduct itself in such a way but the fact that its membership is open only to political parties and the limited time it has been set to reach an outcome makes reflexive deliberation very difficult. Indeed, when we see the proposals submitted to Smith they are largely the well-established positions of the political parties and not the result of any independent or cross-party review. There will of course be give and take in a process of inter-party bartering, but is this the type of democratic deliberation to which post-referendum Scotland aspires?

All of this suggests the need for restraint; for the two governments to set up a much more inclusive and wider-ranging review over a much longer period of time which can be conducted in a more independent way, relatively free from party political horse-trading. Such a process would be able to take the views of many people across civil society as well as assess the interests which are likely to be affected by the devolution of extensive tax and welfare powers; it would also consider the full implications of such changes for the UK as a whole.

In light of this recent experience why not see the referendum as the first step in a new endorsement of popular politics? The post-referendum environment offers the chance to re-engage with a public which is better educated about, engaged with and enthused by constitutional politics than ever before. There have been many experiments in popular deliberation across the world in recent years which have served to give people a meaningful say both in framing major constitutional issues and in making decisions upon these issues directly. To step back and explore such avenues would be no retreat from the democratic will of the people; on the contrary, such an engagement would help fulfil the democratic promise of the referendum.

 

Stephen Tierney is Professor of Constitutional Theory in the School of Law, University of Edinburgh and Director of the Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law.

Suggested citation: S.Tierney, ‘Solomon Grundy Does Constitutional Change: The Smith Commission Timetable to Transform the Scottish Parliament’  (31st October 2014) (available at http://ukconstitutionallaw.org).

5 Comments

Filed under Scotland

Robert Hazell:You want a constitutional convention? This is what you need to think through first.

robert_hazell1

In the run up to the Scottish independence referendum, and its aftermath, calls have grown for a constitutional convention to discuss further devolution, as well as wider constitutional reforms. Yet most constitutional conventions around the world have failed to deliver subsequent reform. Careful thought therefore needs to be given to the purpose, scope and terms of reference, timetable, selection of members, budget, staffing and links to government and Parliament if a convention is to have any chance of success. Robert Hazell addresses each of these issues in turn.

Purpose

A constitutional convention is a group of people convened to draft a constitution (like the drafters of the American constitution in Philadelphia in 1787), or to consider specific constitutional reforms. In recent times conventions have come to include ordinary citizens, like the Irish Constitutional Convention which met from 2012 to 2014. A convention may be established for several reasons:

  • To build cross party consensus for further constitutional reforms
  • To harness expert opinion to chart a way forward
  • To develop a more coherent overall reform package, rather than further piecemeal reforms
  • To bring in ideas from outside the political elite
  • To create greater legitimacy and support for the convention’s proposals
  • To generate wider participation through innovative methods of public engagement.

A constitutional convention is not the only means of achieving these purposes. If the main objective is to build cross-party consensus, then cross-party talks are the obvious vehicle (as in the cross party talks which preceded the Belfast agreement, or the current talks on further devolution to Scotland led by Lord Smith of Kelvin). If the main objective is to harness expert opinion, then the best vehicle may be an expert commission. In recent years expert commissions have been successfully used to chart the way ahead for further devolution, with the Calman Commission in Scotland leading to the Scotland Act 2012, and a series of commissions leading to the grant of further legislative powers to Wales. But the extraordinary levels of public engagement during the referendum campaign in Scotland have created an expectation that for proposals to command legitimacy, there must be greater citizen involvement in producing them. The Scottish experience lies behind calls for a constitutional convention. But alternative models exist (for example, inter parliamentary talks); and there is no single model for a constitutional convention (see Alan Renwick’s excellent pamphlet, and Fournier et al’s book When citizens decide: Lessons from citizens’ assemblies on electoral reform OUP 2011).

Scope and terms of reference

One argument advanced for a constitutional convention is that it would enable development of a coherent overall reform package, rather than further piecemeal reforms. People have suggested that it should address the unfinished business from previous reforms: an elected House of Lords, a British bill of rights, reform of party funding, a written constitution. A list of reform proposals from all sides of the political spectrum could include the following:

  • Renegotiating the balance of competences. In/Out referendum on EU
  • Human rights. Repeal of the Human Rights Act. British bill of rights. Exit from ECHR, Council of Europe
  • Reform of House of Lords. Further improvements to ‘transitional’ appointed House; directly elected second chamber; federal second chamber to represent nations and regions
  • Reforms to House of Commons. Reducing size of House to 600. Changing the voting system. Votes at 16. Extending expatriate voting rights
  • Reform of party funding
  • A written constitution for the UK. This would offer the widest scope, encompassing all the above.

A convention charged with resolving such a wide range of different issues would face an impossible task. Each issue has proved intractable; in combination they are insuperable. Even if the convention is asked just to consider further devolution in the UK, the agenda would be sizeable. It includes the following items:

  • Further devolution to Scotland, of tax and welfare. What else? Devo more or Devo max?
  • Devolution finance, reform of the Barnett formula
  • Further devolution to Wales (Silk report 2 on legislative powers)
  • Further devolution to Northern Ireland (e.g. of corporation tax)
  • Devolution within England: an English Parliament. Regional assemblies, city regions.       Combined authorities, elected mayors, restructuring local government, reforming local government finance
  • Rebalancing the Centre.       English votes on English laws.       Entrenching the devolution settlement. Combined Secretary of State for the Union. Federal second chamber.

This is a big agenda, and a convention charged with considering further devolution would need to have a phased work programme and prioritise certain items. Depending on the political context, it might decide to prioritise work on the English Question (see my earlier blogpost on The English Question).

Timetable

That brings us to the timetable. This must fit the agenda of the next UK government, and the wider political and electoral cycle. What results (if any) are required before the next UK general election in May 2015, the next Scottish elections in May 2016, the introduction of a British bill of rights, or a possible In/Out EU referendum in 2017? Practical realities mean it would be almost impossible to establish a convention before the May 2015 election. In other countries the lead in time required to set up a convention from the formal decision to establish one has typically been six months (see column 2 in the table below). Informal negotiations within the governing party and with other parties can extend that time further: in British Columbia and Ontario it took two years from the initial decision to establish an Assembly to the Assembly starting work. The table below shows the scope, timetable, budget and staffing of previous conventions. It is incomplete, and I would welcome help in filling the gaps and adding details of other conventions, but the data suggest that establishing a convention is a big and complex task, requiring careful planning with long lead in times.

Data about previous constitutional conventions

 

constitutional-conventions

Once established, the timetable of a convention will depend on what it is asked to do. Three of the conventions listed above had a single task, devising a new electoral system. The Irish convention had eight tasks; the Icelandic convention a single huge task, creating a new constitution. The timetable will also depend on the size of the convention, and its working methods. The larger the convention, and the more participatory and inclusive its working methods (eg holding regional meetings), the longer it will take to complete its task.

Establishing the convention: membership, budget, and staffing

Much has already been written about the different options for selecting citizens to serve on a convention so that it is representative of all parts of the UK, and of gender, age, socio-economic background, ethnic minorities, disabled people etc (see Alan Renwick’s pamphlet and the Electoral Reform Society evidence). Ensuring adequate representation from all parts of the UK and all these different variables may result in a large convention: the Electoral Reform Society suggest 200-220 people. That in turn would require a large budget, for servicing large meetings, travel etc. The two Canadian conventions each cost $5m. The Irish convention cost only 1m euros, but was squeezed very tight: those involved say it needed twice the time and twice the money to do justice to its remit. In an age of austerity, with further cuts to come, a Rolls Royce convention may not be feasible. Proponents will need to think how far the size and cost can be scaled back without compromising the integrity of the exercise.

Even a scaled back convention is likely to cost low millions. If the government decides not to establish a convention, it is unlikely that anyone else could afford to do so. But it is conceivable that civil society organisations might try, through a large donation or innovative fund raising through crowdsourcing. They would then have to decide the terms of reference, the timetable, the membership, budget and staffing of the convention, and they would be responsible for the success or failure of the enterprise.

Working methods of the convention

Again, much has been written about this. The convention will need a strong online presence, with an excellent website, podcasts of all its sessions, and imaginative use of social media. It will need to commission and publish evidence, hold public meetings, and it may want to publish working papers and consultation papers. It will also need the ability to commission expert reports, to establish sub committees or expert committees, to commission polling data or other research. An expert panel can help to advise the convention, source and brief the relevant experts, and ensure it draws upon the widest possible research and evidence base.

Links to representative government and legislatures and the political process

Finally, the convention needs to maintain strong links with government and with Parliament to ensure that it carries them along with its thinking. Other conventions have failed in part because they have been too removed from the political process. One way of bringing the two together is to include politicians in the convention, as in Ireland where one third of the members were politicians, and two-thirds ordinary citizens (with mixed success, leading one adviser to suggest that any future convention might have only citizen members and a separate panel of parliamentarians as a conduit and sounding board). Another is to require the convention to deliver an interim report, and then to hold a parliamentary debate so that parliamentarians are informed of the convention’s thinking, and can feed back their initial reactions.

Conclusion

A constitutional convention sounds an attractive idea. But a convention established hastily, overloaded with too many tasks, inadequately staffed or required to report too quickly is almost certain to fail. That will be damaging to the cause of deliberative democracy as well as to constitutional reform. Those who call for a constitutional convention have focused almost exclusively on its membership, and how those members would be selected. As much thought needs to be given to its purpose, terms of reference, timetable, budget, leadership and staffing, as well as its links to government and Parliament. If equally careful thought and planning is given to all those things, a convention stands a much greater chance of success.

Robert Hazell is Professor of British Politics and Government & Director of the Constitution Unit.

 

This post originally appeared on the Constitution Unit Blog and is reposted with thanks.

 

Notes on Table 1

[i] The government that established the BC Citizens’ Assembly was elected in May 2001. It had promised an Assembly as part of a more ambitious reform package that included new public accounting standards, open cabinet meetings etc. There was some opposition in caucus to the idea of holding an Assembly, so it took time for the Premier to generate the necessary support. An expert, Gordon Gibson, was commissioned to prepare a plan for the Assembly, and reported in Dec 2002. In May 2003 the legislature endorsed the proposal, with amendments, and the government’s proposed chair. In August the selection process started with the first mailing of invitations. Selection meetings around the province went on over the fall and the Assembly was then ready to meet in January 2004.

[ii] It took 18 months from the Premier’s announcement of his intention to establish a Citizens’ Assembly, in November 2004, to the Regulation creating the Assembly and appointing the chair in March 2006. It then took a further six months to set up the Assembly, which started work in September 2006.

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Constitutional reform

Sionaidh Douglas-Scott: British withdrawal from the EU: an existential threat to the United Kingdom?

Sionaidh-Douglas-Scott-avatar-1409859580-96x96The Conservative party’s proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act (and their proposal’s many faults) has already been well documented. However, as Roger Masterman has already pointed out on this blog, ‘It seems unusual then, that the target of Grayling’s indignation is the supposed denial of supremacy caused by the non-binding influence of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, rather than the more realistic (though perhaps equally problematic) assertion that legal competence has been ceded in some way to the Court of Justice.’ But the European Union is very much a target of indignation for conservative and other eurosceptics, and David Cameron has promised, if re-elected, an in-out referendum by 2017, if the terms of Britain’s EU membership cannot be renegotiated. With UKIP support gaining in the polls, pressure is growing on other parties to support an EU in-out referendum. There is a realistic prospect that the UK may leave the EU.

There are many arguments that can be made as to why the UK should remain within the EU. This posting addresses just one: the serious constitutional consequences for both the constituent parts of the UK, and the UK as a whole, should there be a ‘Brexit’. Given that the UK has just survived perhaps the most serious threat ever to its constitutional existence, in the form of a very closely run Scottish referendum on independence, and given the fervent and almost desperate nature of the ‘Vow’ made by all three party leaders to accord greater powers to Scotland if necessary to maintain the Union, the risk of such further constitutional instability should be taken seriously.

At first it might seem that Scotland’s ‘No’ vote for independence would lessen the chance of EU secession, given the relatively greater pro-EU vote in Scotland (‘relatively greater’ because UKIP did gain one constituency in the Scottish European parliament elections of 2014). How each constituent part would vote is not certain, but according to 2013 House of Commons figures, 53% of Scots said they would vote to stay in the EU, compared with a third who said they would vote to leave. This was in contrast to attitudes in England, where 50% said they would vote to leave the EU compared with 42% who would vote to stay in. At the last European Parliament elections in May 2014, UKIP gained the largest percentage of votes in the UK overall, with 27.5%, but in Scotland only 10.46% of the vote. Furthermore, EU regional funding tends to benefit Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland more than it does England. Wales and Northern Ireland are net recipients from the EU Budget, and in particular, Northern Ireland stands to lose significant sums if the UK withdrew from the EU. Likewise, to the extent that the devolved nations have access to EU institutions in areas of devolved competence, they enjoy an international presence that would be difficult to replicate through country-specific diplomatic missions. So there are distinct advantages to be lost by an EU exit.

However, the relatively lower eurosceptic vote in the devolved nations would not make a great impact on an EU in-out referendum overall, given that (according to the Office for National Statistics) the population of the devolved nations eligible to vote is small compared to that in England. How much does this matter? It matters a great deal if the vote in the devolved nations is of a less eurosceptic complexion than the English vote in an EU in-out referendum.

Destabilising devolution

It is with the devolution settlement itself that an EU exit would wreak the most havoc, risking a constitutional crisis. Both the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and EU law are incorporated directly into the devolution statutes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For example, section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 (SA), provides that Acts of the Scottish Parliament that are incompatible with EU law or with ECHR rights are ‘not law’. Section 108(6) Government of Wales Act 2006 states that any act of the Welsh Assembly incompatible with EU law or the ECHR, falls outside its competence. Section 24 of the Northern Ireland Act prohibits any legislation contrary to EU or ECHR law.

Therefore, although the Westminster Parliament may repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 or the European Communities Act (ECA) 1972, this would not bring an end to the domestic incorporation of the ECHR or EU law in devolved nations. It would still be necessary to amend the relevant parts of devolution legislation. But this would be no simple matter and could lead to a constitutional crisis. Although the UK Parliament may amend the devolution Acts, the UK government has stated that it will not normally legislate on a devolved matter without the consent of the devolved legislature. This requires a Legislative Consent Motion under the Sewel Convention. However, the devolved legislatures might be reluctant to grant assent, especially as one feature of the ‘Vow’ made to the Scottish electorate was a commitment to entrench the Scottish Parliament’s powers, thus giving legal force to the Sewel Convention. So the need to amend devolution legislation renders a UK EU exit constitutionally highly problematic.

Should devolved nations be able to host separate referenda?

Would it be possible for the devolved nations to demand their own referenda in the event of a Westminster mandated EU in-out referendum? In the frenzied last days before the Scottish independence referendum, there was talk of moves towards a ‘federal’ UK. This does not seem very likely now, and whatever recommendations the Smith Commission will deliver later this year (which are likely to include more financial, welfare and taxation powers for the Scottish Parliament) they are unlikely to include greater autonomy in foreign affairs. However, as many areas of EU competence are devolved matters, and continued Scottish membership of the EU was a concern in the event of Scottish independence, the matter is likely to be of great interest in Scotland. Notably, between the 2015 UK general election and the promised 2017 EU in-out referendum will come another election – the 2016 Scottish parliamentary elections. The SNP may perform well in that election, bolstered by the 45% vote in the independence referendum and progress toward ‘devo max’. In which case, the Edinburgh government – which is generally of a more pro-European and social-democratic hue than Westminster – might call for a new independence referendum if there were a serious prospect of a 2017 referendum leading to a UK EU exit, presenting such a further independence referendum as Scotland’s means of remaining within the EU. And given this change of circumstances they might gain over 50% of the vote. This would not find favour in London, which would almost certainly not accord a repeat referendum the sanction of legitimacy accorded to the 2014 vote. However, regions have been willing to go ahead with referenda even without a constitutional sanction – such as Catalonia this November.

In the face of such a prospect, should a potential EU in-out referendum be required to take on a different constitutional form to past UK-wide referenda? Should a requirement be set for a majority of exit votes in each of the devolution jurisdictions before UK withdrawal is possible? Or perhaps each of the devolved nations should be able to hold its own in-out referendum, and a ‘federal’ standard set whereby UK withdrawal is only possible if a majority of the devolved nations vote to exit? 

Scotland and the sovereignty question

A British exit from the EU is sometimes justified in terms of the maintenance of parliamentary sovereignty, which presently must concede the supremacy of EU law (acknowledged both in ECJ caselaw such as Costa v ENEL, and s 2(4) ECA). However, the Diceyan orthodoxy of parliamentary sovereignty has never held as much weight north of the border. In the 1953 case of MacCormick v Lord Advocate in the Court of Session, the Lord President, Lord Cooper, (a former Conservative and Unionist politician and eminent legal historian) contested the Diceyan orthodoxy thus:

‘The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law….Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new parliament, I have difficulty seeing why it should have been supposed that the new parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English parliament but none of the Scottish parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the parliament of England.’

Linda Colley’s well-known work, Britons: Forging the Nation, reminds us that both the British state and the British national identity were ‘forged’ by the Acts of Union of 1707. The United Kingdom is only 300 years old, not an ancient natural phenomenon, and it may be undone. Given that the Union of 1707 brought into being the British state, ought we not give this historical event of the Acts of Union its due as a keystone of the British constitution, rather than the Diceyan mantra of parliamentary sovereignty? In which case, perhaps we should recognise that the British constitution is not simply the English constitution, and that Scottish constitutional principles (and Northern Irish, and even now nascent Welsh – given the recent ‘Welsh Bye-laws case) play their part in a multiple constitutional order, and may be of particular salience at times of crisis or ‘constitutional’ moments, such as the issue of whether to withdraw from the EU. Scottish intellectuals, lawyers and politicians of many different political persuasions stand by an indigenous Scottish tradition of popular sovereignty that is claimed to date back to the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. They hold that, before the 1707 Act of Union, sovereignty resided in the Scottish people – and that it still does so, in spite of the claims of Diceyan parliamentary sovereignty.

Many Scottish unionist politicians accept the doctrine of Scottish popular sovereignty. It was this doctrine that pervaded the Claim of Right for Scotland in 1989, which was signed by the great majority of Scotland’s MPs and many of the leaders of Scottish civil society. The draft Constitution for an independent Scotland, published earlier his year, stated that ‘the fundamental principle’ that ‘the people are sovereign…resonates throughout Scotland’s history and will be the foundation stone for Scotland as an independent country’.

Therefore, meditation on the entirety of the Union, and its constitutional basis, poses the question of whether, at least in Scotland, the doctrine of popular sovereignty might form the basis of Scotland’s own right to determine whether or not it exits the EU. If Scotland chose to remain, and England to leave, the scope for constitutional crisis would be extreme.

Impact on Ireland and the Northern Ireland peace process

Lastly, the impact on the island of Ireland of a UK exit from the EU should be considered. It could well be source of great instability. Although Ireland itself is clearly a separate state, and has long since left the UK, it is nonetheless in a somewhat different relationship to the UK than the other current 26 members of the EU. Section 2(1) of the Ireland Act 1949 (the British Act of Parliament passed to deal with the consequences of the Irish Republic of Ireland Act 1948) declared that, even though the Republic of Ireland was no longer a British dominion, it would not be treated as a ‘foreign country’ for the purposes of British law. Irish and UK history are much intertwined and, were the UK to exit the EU, it would mean an external border of the EU would run through the island of Ireland. The shared border with the Republic of Ireland has long been of enormous symbolic and practical importance. What would happen to the Common Travel Area between the two islands if the UK exited the EU? Would visa requirements and customs duties be imposed?

The Belfast or ‘Good Friday’ Agreement of 1998, an international treaty signed by the UK and Republic of Ireland, enshrined North-South and East-West co-operation, effected constitutional changes and established cross-border bodies. It includes many provisions concerning EU and ECHR law, and the status of the UK and Ireland as EU member states is woven throughout the Agreement. Indeed, the section entitled ‘Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland’ speaks of ‘close co-operation between (the) countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union’. The Good Friday Agreement required the British government to incorporate the ECHR into Northern Ireland law. Any amendment through changes to either the Human Rights or Northern Ireland Acts which did not meet the human rights commitments in the agreement would be incompatible with this international treaty. The peace process in Northern Ireland is unfortunately not irreversible, but it has been unforgivably ignored in UK discussion on whether to withdraw from the EU. It is also likely to be ignored in Brussels, where there is some impatience with British demands in any case.

In March 2012, a joint Statement by Taoiseach Enda Kenny and Prime Minister David Cameron set out a programme to reinforce the British-Irish relationship over the next 10 years. It emphasised the importance of shared common membership of the EU for almost forty years and described them as ‘firm supporters of the Single Market’. However, a UK EU exit would have consequences for the future of the Belfast agreement and in particular implications for Anglo-Irish co-operation in dealing with cross-border crime and terrorist activity. To give just one example: the UK and Ireland make frequent use of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Figures indicate that since the EAW entered into force, the great majority of requests made by Northern Ireland for surrender of persons have been to Ireland. Prior to the introduction of the EAW, a number of European and domestic measures in the UK and Ireland regulated extradition proceedings, and resurrecting these would be a painful process, fraught with difficulties and uncertainties and potential for endless litigation. While the EAW has not always functioned ideally, a return to bi-lateral extradition conventions and other measures would be very undesirable. (Although the UK’s current plans are to exercise a block opt-out from over 130 EU Justice and Home Affairs measures, the apparent intention is to opt back in to the EAW immediately).

In conclusion, a British exit from the EU risks undermining the very self-determination and national sovereignty that its adherents believe it will bring about. This is because it risks shattering the fragile balance and stability of the UK by threatening the peace settlement in Northern Ireland and raises the possibility of a further independence referendum in Scotland. Surely such constitutional risks are not to be taken on lightly? But at present, there is little indication that anyone calling for an EU exit is giving them much thought. 

Sionaidh Douglas-Scott is Professor of European and Human Rights Law at Oxford University.

 

(Suggested Citation: S. Douglas-Scott, ‘British withdrawal from the EU: an existential threat to the United Kingdom?’ U.K. Const. L. Blog (13th October 2014) (available at http://ukconstitutionallaw.org).

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Devolution, Europe, European Union, Northern Ireland, Scotland

Aileen McHarg: The Vow: Vote No for More Devo

aileenToday’s papers carry the text of a pledge by David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg that a No vote in Thursday’s referendum is not a vote for the status quo.  Rather, they claim, a No vote will mean ‘faster, safer and better change’ to the devolution settlement than a Yes vote would bring.  This is the fourth commitment to further devolution by the Unionist parties – following the pledge by the Scottish party leaders in June, another by the UK party leaders in August, and the timetable for reform announced by Gordon Brown and endorsed by the other parties last week – and all three parties have, of course, produced individual sets of reform proposals.[1]  However, this latest pledge strengthens the commitment to reform by offering more information on the likely substance of a post-referendum cross-party agreement.  Accordingly, we can probably now say with some confidence that there will be some reform to the devolution settlement in the event of a No vote.

Nevertheless, important questions still remain about the nature of the constitutional alternative to independence that is being offered to voters in Scotland.

Do We Know What Exactly is on Offer?

There are four elements to the party leaders’ latest pledge.

First, they promise ‘extensive new powers for the [Scottish] Parliament’.  The pledge does not specify what these will be, but going by the individual party proposals, the key reforms are likely to involve taxation and welfare powers.  However, as regards further tax devolution, there are significant disagreements between the three parties on how far this should go.  The Liberal Democrats have proposed full devolution of income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and air passenger duty, along with assignment of the proceeds from corporation tax.  The Conservatives have proposed full devolution of income tax, air passenger duty and (possibly) assignment of the proceeds from VAT.  The Labour party proposes only further partial devolution of income tax, and a possible power to set a lower rate of fuel duty for remote rural areas.

On welfare powers, the Liberal Democrats propose that these should be entirely retained at the UK level, while both Labour and (more tentatively) the Conservatives have suggested devolution of Housing Benefit and Attendance Allowance, with the Conservatives also proposing a general power to ‘top up’ UK-wide benefits.  The problem here is that it is not clear how, in practical terms, individual benefits could be hived off from the overall welfare system, particularly given the move away from specific benefits towards Universal Credit.

Secondly, the pledge states that ‘the Scottish Parliament is permanent’.  Again, it is not clear what is intended here.  The Liberal Democrats proposed entrenchment of the Scottish Parliament via a formal declaration of the UK Parliament, while the Labour party proposed that the Sewel Convention (which prevents legislation by the UK Parliament on devolved matters, or amendment of the Scotland Act, without the Scottish Parliament’s consent) should be made legally binding.  However, without broader constitutional reform, neither of these would by themselves secure legal entrenchment of the Scottish Parliament.

Thirdly, the pledge implies that the Barnett formula, which secures a relatively generous allocation of public expenditure to Scotland, will be retained.  It does, however, stop short of clear guarantee – perhaps in recognition of the fact that this is a controversial issue elsewhere in the UK.  And in any case, the significance of the Barnett formula will be proportionately reduced the greater the degree of fiscal devolution.

Finally, the pledge contains a statement of the ‘purposes’ of the Union.  The party leaders ‘agree that the Union exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources equitably across all four nations to secure the defence, prosperity and welfare of every citizen.’  This picks up on an idea proposed by the Liberal Democrats and by Gordon Brown that there should be a declaration of ‘principles of Union’ to guide future development of devolution, and (presumably) assist in resolving conflicts over the allocation of powers between Westminster and Holyrood.  As things stand, however, it is not clear what legal status, if any, such an agreement on the ‘purposes’ of the Union would have.  Moreover, the statement agreed by the party leaders is so vague and bland as to be little help in assisting with the kinds of detailed disputes over which powers should be reserved and which devolved which have arisen in the past and which are likely to recur in future.

There are a variety of other specific reform proposals which appear in the different parties’ devolution proposals.  For instance, Labour and the Liberal Democrats have recommended reforms to the machinery for inter-governmental relations to enhance partnership working.  All three parties have called for reforms to local government in Scotland.  And the Conservatives have proposed reforms to the internal workings of the Scottish Parliament and to the civil service in Scotland.  It is still not clear whether any of these wider issues will be included in post-referendum reforms, nor whether more powers for the Scottish Parliament might be conditional on agreement to these broader changes.

Can the UK Party Leaders Commit to Further Reform?

Assuming that that agreement can be reached on the content of further reforms to devolution, is the pledge by the party leaders a guarantee that such reforms will in fact be implemented?  After all, one of the reasons why the UK government rejected the Scottish Government’s suggestion that there should be a second question on more devolution on the referendum ballot paper was that changes to the devolution settlement could not legitimately be agreed without a UK-wide process.  At the very least, any changes will inevitably require the consent of the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, whether in the form of new primary legislation, or of Orders under the Scotland Act 1998 or the Scotland Act 2012.

In reality, the party leaders probably can ensure, though the operation of the party whips, that sufficient of their members will back any legislative proposals that emerge from a post-referendum agreement process.  Nevertheless, given that we know that there is considerable opposition amongst both Labour and Conservative backbenchers to the transfer of any more powers to Scotland, and likely unhappiness in the Welsh Assembly (and perhaps also the Northern Ireland Assembly) about further privileging the Scots, any legislative proposals can expect to face opposition in the House of Commons, and perhaps especially in the House of Lords.  Given that the Scottish Parliament will remain under the control of the SNP after the referendum, we might also expect that Holyrood will try to use its consent power to seek stronger powers and/or to remove proposals that the SNP does not like, as occurred in relation to the Scotland Act 2012.

Is the Proposed Timetable Feasible?

Given the ongoing lack of agreement on the details of reform, as well as the likelihood of opposition, the timetable proposed by Gordon Brown for post-referendum reforms to be implemented seems extremely ambitious.  The proposal is that cross-party talks would be convened immediately after a No vote in the referendum, with a view to producing a White Paper by the end of October and draft legislation by January 2015.  Since there would then be less than three months before the dissolution of the UK Parliament on 30 March 2015, there seems little realistic chance of legislation being enacted before the General Election on 7 May.  Nor would it be desirable for an important constitutional reform measure like this to be subject to such a truncated period for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.

In fact, this does not appear to be what is envisaged.  Instead, the proposal seems to be that the three main parties would commit in their election manifestoes to enacting the agreed draft legislation in the first session of the new Parliament.  However, postponing reform until after the 2015 election adds a new element of political uncertainty.  It is unclear whether manifesto commitments would be honoured if, for instance, the proposals became a major point of contention in the election campaign or if UKIP secured significant electoral support.

Are the Powers On Offer Likely to be Adequate?

Assuming that the parties can agree on a set of proposals for reforming the devolution settlement and get them through the legislative process intact, are they likely to make a substantial difference to the powers of the Scottish Parliament?

Although the media routinely refer to the alterative to independence as ‘devo max’, it seems clear that even the most expansive version of any likely agreement between the parties would fall far short of ‘full fiscal autonomy’, and an even longer way short of giving the Scottish Parliament powers to engage in meaningful reform of the welfare system.  To the extent that the referendum debate has unleashed a desire on the part of the Scottish people for fundamental social and economic reform, these proposals would not allow that desire to be fulfilled by the Scottish Parliament.

Indeed, there is a risk that the Scottish Parliament could in practice be more tightly constrained than it is at present.  As already noted, an increase in fiscal autonomy necessarily implies a reduction in the relatively generous financial consequences for Scotland from the Barnett formula.  During the referendum campaign, the Scottish Government has sought to justify that generous treatment by pointing out that Scotland generates more in tax revenues than it receives by way of public expenditure.  However, that favourable tax position is largely attributable to the assignment of a geographic share of oil and gas revenues to Scotland.  Since there is no proposal to assign or devolve these revenues to Scotland, a Scottish Parliament with enhanced tax raising powers could find itself in a weaker financial position.  Indeed, the desire to rein in the Scottish Parliament’s spending power seems to be a key reason why the Conservative party is relatively keener than the Labour party to extend Holyrood’s fiscal powers.

Moreover, as Paul Cairney has argued, the devolution of income tax by itself gives the illusion of greater fiscal autonomy than it actually brings.  For one thing, the Scottish Government would have limited power to balance changes in income tax with changes in other taxes, so as to enable it to influence social and economic behaviour.  For another, income tax is a tax with particularly high political salience, making it especially difficult to increase.  In the context of ongoing Union, it would also be politically difficult to maintain different income tax levels from elsewhere in the UK.

Is Reform Likely to Produce a Stable Constitutional Settlement?

What is missing from the party leaders’ pledge is any acknowledgment of the implications of further devolution for Scotland for the governance of the rest of the UK.  As is well-known, the UK’s current territorial constitution is highly asymmetric: there are different levels of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and none in England.  This is a situation which is potentially highly unstable, as the different devolved nations play catch-up with one another.  It is also a situation with high potential for territorial resentment.  We see this, for instance, in concern over the perceived unfairness of the Barnett formula, and in the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’, which asks why Scottish (and Welsh and Northern Irish) MPs should be able to vote on issues in the UK Parliament which affect England only.  This latter problem stems from the lack of institutional differentiation between the governance of England and the governance of the UK.  But its flip side is equally problematic – the inbuilt risk of conflating the interests of the UK with the interests of England.

There has been some discussion during the referendum campaign of establishing a constitutional convention in the event of a no vote to examine the broader territorial constitution, and some interest in a potential federal solution.  However, there are significant challenges in finding a stable, long-term constitutional solution for the UK.  More importantly, the absence of any such promises from the party leaders’ pledge suggests that broader constitutional reforms are unlikely to be a high political priority.  In the meantime, stronger powers for Scotland are likely simply to exacerbate existing asymmetries at the risk of further stoking territorial resentments.

Conclusion

The ratcheting up of the unionist parties’ promises on further devolution suggests a belated realisation that keeping a second question on this topic off the referendum ballot paper was a tactical mistake.  We have known all along that there would have been considerable public support for a half-way house between independence and the status quo, and over the course of the long referendum campaign it might well have been possible to work out some of the problems in the current proposals that have been identified here.

In contrast, by introducing a de facto third option at this very late stage in the referendum process – and very obviously in response to tightening opinion polls – the unionist parties may well discover that their proposals are ‘too little too late’ to stop the momentum towards a Yes vote.  Alternatively, if the No vote does hold up, and the proposals are implemented, it might be a case of ‘legislate in haste, repent at leisure’.

Aileen McHarg is Professor of Public Law at the University of Strathclyde

 

This post originally appeared on the Scottish Constitutional Futures Forum Blog.

 

[1] Scottish Liberal Democrats (2012), Federalism: the Best Future for Scotland: Report of the Home Rule and Community Rule Commission; Scottish Liberal Democrats (2014), Campbell II: the Second Report of the Home Rule and Community Rule Commission; Scottish Labour Devolution Commission (2014), Powers for a Purpose – Strengthening Accountability and Empowering People; Scottish Conservatives (2014), Report of the Commission on the Future Governance of Scotland.

3 Comments

Filed under Scotland

Ann Sherlock: Supreme Court ruling on Welsh legislation.

AnnOn 9 July 2014, the Supreme Court delivered its unanimous ruling that the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill was within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales.

The Bill had been referred to the Supreme Court in August 2013 by the Attorney General for England and Wales under section 112(1) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (hereafter GWA 2006). This provision, whose equivalents in the Scottish and Northern Irish devolution legislation have yet to be used, allows for the referral of a Bill passed by the Assembly if the Attorney General or the Counsel General, the Welsh Government’s law officer, considers that it goes beyond the Assembly’s legislative competence.

This is the second occasion on which a Bill has been referred: the first concerned the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill. The Attorney General argued that the Bill exceeded the Assembly’s competence in that it flouted a general restriction on the Assembly’s competence by removing or modifying a function of a Minister of the Crown. In the event, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, while the Bill did remove some of the Secretary of State’s functions, that removal was saved by the exception in the GWA 2006 which permits the removal of a function as long as it is ‘incidental to, or consequential on, any other provision contained in the Act of the Assembly.’ In the case of the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill, the issue related to whether the legislation went outside the subject areas in which the Assembly has legislative competence.

The Assembly’s legislative competence

As will be known, unlike in Scotland and Northern Ireland where all power is devolved unless expressly reserved (or excepted) to the UK Parliament, the GWA 2006 uses a conferred powers model under which the Assembly may legislate only on those subjects enumerated in the Act. Since 2011, those subjects are set out in Schedule 7 of the GWA 2006. Section 108(4) of that Act provides that an Assembly Act will be within its competence if ‘it relates to one or more of the subjects listed under any of the headings in Part 1 of Schedule 7’ and does not fall within any of the exceptions set out under any of the headings in that Part of the Schedule. (Additional limits on competence, such as those requiring compatibility with EU law and the ‘Convention rights’, were not relevant here.) Section 108(7) of the GWA 2006 states that the meaning of the term ‘relates to’ is to be ‘determined by reference to the purpose of the provision, having regard (among other things) to its effect in all the circumstances.’

The Bill under review

The Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill was passed in order to provide for a scheme to regulate agricultural wages in Wales following the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales under the (UK) Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. Until its demise, the Agricultural Wages Board set minimum wages for workers employed in agriculture, and other terms and conditions of employment. The Welsh Government wished to retain a system for regulating agricultural wages within Wales and sought to do this in the legislation under review. In general terms, the Bill preserved a statutory regime for workers in the agriculture sector which acknowledged the distinctiveness of this sector, and sought to safeguard a succession of skilled workers, with provisions for apprentices and trainees. It preserved the level of statutory protections in the Agricultural Wages Order of 2012 which, without the provision of this Bill, would have been revoked from October 2013. That Order recognised different categories of worker based on qualifications, competence, experience and levels of responsibility: all of these grades were above the current national minimum wage. The Bill provided for the establishment of an Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales which would carry out similar but modified functions to those undertaken by the Agricultural Wages Board.

The Attorney General questioned the competence of the Assembly to make this legislation on the basis that it dealt with employment matters and industrial relations rather than agriculture. The Counsel General submitted that the Bill related to agriculture and on that basis came within the Assembly’s legislative competence.

The Court’s ruling

In reaching its decision, a number of matters to which the Attorney General referred the Court were ruled to be irrelevant to the interpretation of Schedule 7. The Court held that a ministerial statement in Parliament regarding the purpose of the GWA 2006, as being to ‘deepen’ rather than to ‘broaden’ devolution, was too general and ambiguous to be of assistance in interpreting the GWA. It also ruled that it would be inappropriate to consider correspondence which took place prior to the introduction of the Government of Wales Bill in 2005 between the Wales Office, the Welsh Government and Parliamentary Counsel: this correspondence was said to set out the views of the two executives on the scope of the subject of ‘agriculture’ and whether it should include specific references to competence in relation to the Agricultural Wages Board. Since this was correspondence which was never referred to in Parliament or made public, the Court held that it would be inconsistent with transparency and the democratic process to take it into account. Finally, the Court held that the fact that a power had not been transferred under the first or second phases of devolution was irrelevant to the position pertaining under the third, and current, phase of devolution for Wales.

As to how the GWA 2006 should be interpreted, the Court referred to the general principles developed in the previous Welsh Byelaws case, namely that:

  1. whether the provision was outside the Assembly’s competence must be determined by the rules laid down in section 108 and Schedule 7;
  2. the GWA 2006 should be interpreted in the same way as any other statute and its description as ‘an Act of great constitutional significance’ could not be taken, in itself, as a guide to its interpretation;
  3. when enacting the GWA 2006, ‘[t]he aim was to achieve a constitutional settlement’ and it was proper to have regard to that purpose in determining the meaning of words.

The Court examined the subjects listed in Schedule 7, noting the enumeration of agriculture as an area of competence and the exceptions to that particular subject (which relate to hunting with dogs, regulation of experiments on animals, import and export controls and regulation of the movement of animals, and authorisations of veterinary medicines and medicinal products.)   Since an exception will be relevant wherever it appears in Schedule 7, the Court examined the other subject headings and the exceptions listed under each of these. The Court noted the areas listed under the heading ‘Economic development’ (which includes economic regeneration and development and promotion of business and competiveness as areas of competence) and the exceptions listed under that heading. In particular, it noted that occupational and personal pension schemes were exceptions to the Assembly’s competence: this exception related to specific aspects of employment but Schedule 7 did not include any general exception in respect of employment or remuneration of employees.

As to the meaning of ‘agriculture’, which is not defined in the GWA 2006, the Court concluded that ‘agriculture’ could not be intended to refer only to ‘the cultivation of the soil or the rearing of livestock’. Rather, it needed to be understood ‘in a broader sense as designating the industry or economic activity of agriculture in all its aspects, including the business and other constituent elements of that industry’. This view was supported by the broad definition that had been given in Schedule 5 to the ‘red meat industry’, the only area of agriculture in which the Assembly had legislative competence prior to 2011.

With agriculture thus defined, the Court had little difficulty in concluding that the Bill was ‘aptly classified’ as relating to agriculture: ‘the purpose and effect of such a regime are to operate on the economic activity of agriculture by promoting and protecting the agricultural industry in Wales.’ However, the Attorney General submitted that the Bill would have an effect on employment and industrial relations, neither of which was listed as a subject on which the Assembly had legislative competence. However, the Court observed that neither were these matters specified anywhere in the Act as exceptions to the Assembly’s competence: as noted earlier, certain aspects of employment are listed as exceptions but in the Court’s view the specifying of these particular aspects suggested that there was no intention to create a more general limitation on the Assembly’s competence.

The Court accepted the Attorney General’s submission that the Bill might be characterised as relating to employment and industrial relations. This made it necessary to consider whether a Bill relating to a listed area of competence might still be regarded as falling outside competence if it also related to an area which was not listed as devolved. The Court considered that this issue would not arise very frequently given the relatively extensive list of exceptions set out in Schedule 7: this case arose because, despite not being devolved, employment and industrial relations were not stated to be exceptions to those areas which were explicitly devolved.

The crux of the Attorney General’s argument was that, in reality, this Bill did not relate to agriculture but to employment and industrial relations and should be characterised in that way. He contended that the Court should determine the ‘real’ purpose and objective effect of the legislation. The Court refused. It accepted that, as in this case, there might be more than one way of characterising the purpose and effect of a Bill: a Bill establishing a scheme for regulating agricultural wages could ‘in principle reasonably be classified either as relating to agriculture or as relating to employment and industrial relations. Which classification is the more apt depends on the purpose for which the classification is being carried out, and on the classifactory scheme which has to be employed.’ In the Court’s view, the rules in section 108 and Schedule 7 had to be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the words used: doing so would achieve a ‘coherent, stable and workable outcome’. In most cases, an explicit exception to a devolved subject area would resolve a question about competence. However, when, as here, no exception to the devolved subject was stated, section 108 still provided the test: provided that a Bill ‘fairly and realistically’ satisfied the test set out in section 108(4) and (7) and did not fall within an exception, it came within the Assembly’s competence. It did not matter that it might also be capable of being classified as relating to a subject which had not been devolved, as long as the latter had not been explicitly excepted. To agree to the Attorney General’s submission would be to add exceptions to those specified in the GWA 2006 and would give rise to uncertainty and to scheme that was ‘neither stable nor workable.’ Accordingly, a Bill which undoubtedly related to a devolved subject would be within the Assembly’s competence even if it could also be characterised as a Bill relating to a non-devolved matter which was not explicitly excepted in the GWA 2006.

General comments

The ruling in this case makes a significant clarification in relation to the competence of the Assembly. The Supreme Court sets out a straightforward approach to determining whether there is competence, which is grounded in the terms of the GWA 2006: as long as a Bill ‘fairly and realistically’ relates to a subject which is listed in Schedule 7, this being determined by reference to its effect and purpose, it will be within the Assembly’s competence unless it falls within an exception listed in Schedule 7 or elsewhere in the Act.

While most cases will be determined by the express grants and exceptions in Schedule 7, there will be other cases where there is less certainty. One such case would arise if the Assembly were to enact legislation providing for a general prohibition on smacking children and young people, by removing the defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’: this was a commitment of earlier Welsh Governments but was not included in the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and when the issue was raised by the Assembly’s Health and Social Care Committee during the passage of the Bill (18 April 2013), the Deputy Minister expressed concerns that if such a prohibition were included in the Bill, there would be a challenge to the legislation from the UK Government regarding the Assembly’s competence ( Under Schedule 7 is it is clear that that the Assembly has competence in relation to protecting and promoting the well-being of children and young people. Criminal law on the other hand is not listed among the devolved subjects. However, section 108(5) provides that an Act will be within the Assembly’s competence if it is to enforce a provision of legislation that is within the Assembly’s competence or is otherwise incidental or consequential on such a provision.) The Welsh Government has stated that it has no plans to legislate on this issue during the current Assembly term: if such legislation is put forward at a later stage, we can expect another reference to the Supreme Court and a further clarification of the Assembly’s competence.

There is one further reference to the Supreme Court in the pipeline, concerning the Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill. This Bill allows for the recovery of costs incurred by the NHS in Wales in providing care and treatment to victims of an asbestos-related disease. Interestingly, this Bill has been referred by the Welsh Government’s own law officer, the Counsel General. His statement to the Assembly made clear that he considered the Bill to be within the Assembly’s competence but, aware of the fact that the insurance industry had disputed this throughout the Bill’s passage, wished the matter to be determined by the Supreme Court before its entry into force rather than waiting for what he considered an inevitable challenge afterwards which would be more time-consuming and more expensive. Were the Bill to be found to be outside the Assembly’s competence, this ‘pre-emptive challenge’ avoids the possible need for unpicking transactions made under it. The Counsel General considered it ‘very unlikely’ that such home-grown references would be made very often, although he was reluctant to describe this approach as ‘exceptional’.

While many in Wales consider that a move to a reserved powers model would greatly improve the clarity of the devolution settlement for Wales, some disputes will arise whatever the model. Nonetheless, the particular conferred powers model in Wales with its very specific grants and exceptions, and, as in this case, issues which are not mentioned explicitly as exceptions to devolved subjects, does not help. Accordingly, the recommendation in the Silk Part 2 Report for a reserved powers model was generally welcomed in Wales. However, the current arrangements are likely to be in place for some time still – even if the UK Government were to follow the Silk recommendations, the Silk report does not envisage an Assembly operating under the new system until 2021. In the meantime, and for those disputes which concern ‘borderline’ areas under any model, the clarification provided by the Supreme Court is valuable in improving the workability of the current arrangements.

 

Ann Sherlock, Centre for Welsh Legal Affairs, Aberystwyth University

 

(Suggested citation: Ann Sherlock, ‘Supreme Court ruling on Welsh legislation’ U. K. Const. L. Blog (30th July 2014) (available at: http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/)

2 Comments

Filed under Devolution, Wales