Category Archives: Westminster

Brexit, Article 50 and devolved legislative consent

This post is about whether Brexit requires legislative consent from the devolved legislatures, particularly the Scottish Parliament, and what that consent relates to – whether the whole process of Brexit, or only aspects of it.  It argues that the English and Welsh High Court’s judgment in the Miller case ([2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin)) on the use of prerogative powers alters the position significantly, and that the implication of that judgment is that the consent of at least the Scottish Parliament is needed for the triggering of Article 50.  Whether that will be the case depends, of course, on what the UK Supreme Court has to say when it comes to give its ruling on the issue early next year.

Apologies if this seems like a long and technical discussion of legislative consent.  But while there has been much discussion about the need for legislative consent – mainly, Scottish assertions that Holyrood’s consent is essential and can therefore be used to block the UK’s departure from the EU, contradicted by various UK politicians including Theresa May, David Davis and Jeremy Wright – there hasn’t been much analysis in terms of the rules that govern the Sewel convention.  (There’s a detailed discussion of that HERE.)  As a result there is a great deal of confusion about what does and does not require legislative consent.  In fact, the rules are quite simple.

  • Legislation which affects devolved functions requires consent – by convention for Northern Ireland and Wales (until the current Wales bill comes into effect), and by statute for Scotland.  (One might call this the ‘policy arm’ of the convention.)
  • Changes which alter the legislative competence of the Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers also require legislative consent, by convention.  That applies whether the change removes functions from the devolved legislature or executive, or confers new functions on either of them.  (This can be called the ‘constitutional arm’ of the convention.).
  • As a convention, it is not justiciable before the courts – but the statutory arm of it is.  Otherwise, the UK Parliament remains sovereign, something explicitly stated in all the principal devolution Acts.
  • In any event the convention contains an exception so that in some circumstances it may not be binding – the convention only applies ‘normally’ – though no-one can have a clear idea what that exception really means.

(So far as Scotland is concerned, the key text is Devolution Guidance Note 10 on Post – Devolution Primary Legislation affecting Scotland, available here.  Although that is an internal document of the UK Government and has not been revised since 2005, it was in fact agreed between the two governments.)

Working out whether the convention applies in its policy arm is easy enough conceptually, but rather harder in practice.  The test is whether the Westminster legislation would be within the competence of the devolved legislature if it were tabled for consideration there.  If the legislation could be passed by the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales or Northern Ireland Assembly, it requires their legislative consent.  (As it can be hard identifying the boundaries of competence of the National Assembly for Wales, it can be particularly difficult applying that test there.)  Ultimately, as this arm of Sewel is now statutory for Scotland, this is a matter for the courts.

We do not, of course, know what form the UK legislation to enact Brexit will take.  Depending on the Supreme Court’s view, it may involve Parliamentary approval for the triggering of Article 50, which if needed is likely to be an Act rather than a resolution (to put the question beyond doubt).  Theresa May has said that subsequently there will be a ‘Great Repeal Bill’ to transpose existing EU obligations into domestic law and replace the European Communities Act 1972.  There may need to be further post-Brexit legislation as well.

So far as Scotland is concerned, international relations including EU matters are reserved, and purely within the competence of the UK Parliament. Key provisions of the European Communities Act 1972 are also protected provisions and may not be modified by Holyrood.   They are similarly excepted for Northern Ireland.  Any attempt by Holyrood or Stormont to legislate for them would be beyond the legislature’s competence, so Sewel in its policy arm would not apply.

Arguments about whether legislative consent is needed for Brexit therefore appear to rest on the constitutional arm.  Here, there seem to be two arguments. First, that Brexit affects devolved functions which are subject to heavy EU influence – which includes most devolved functions, but with agriculture, fisheries and the environment at the top of the list.  They are not reserved, but the devolved government and parliament are subject to the general requirements to comply with EU law.  The argument seems to be that these functions would be changed by Brexit, and consent to that is needed.  That argument makes the assumption that there would be some sort of UK-wide policy for them once the UK leaves the EU.  Indeed, at least some from the SNP has been keen to call for that not to be the case, and control of these areas to be left wholly to the Scottish Parliament.  If the UK Government were to agree (and there are good policy reasons why it might – it will have enough to do with implementing Brexit on top of adding a UK framework for these policy areas), that argument falls away.  By agreeing to allow these policy areas to be devolved, there is no change to devolved functions so no need for legislative consent.  Ironically, demands to enhance the devolved legislatures’ powers in one respect undermine their claim to need to consent to UK-wide changes in another.  If the UK Government were to make a clear official statement on this (and the Scottish Secretary has already suggested this), the matter would be resolved beyond doubt.

The second reason why devolved legislative consent might be needed is because it will involve changes to the text of the devolution legislation.  (See, for example, Sionaidh Douglas-Scott here.)  Devolution Guidance Note 10 on Post – Devolution Primary Legislation affecting Scotland makes it clear that

  • provisions which either do not apply to Scotland at all, or which do apply there but relate to reserved matters under the Scotland Act 1998,
  • or provisions which apply to Scotland and relate to reserved matters, but also make incidental or consequential changes to Scots law on non-reserved matters

do not need legislative consent.  This does not provide that any change to the text of the Scotland Acts requires legislative consent – only when that legislation changes the legislative competence of the Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers.  It relates to substantive effect, not form, and not to incidental or consequential changes relating to reserved matters.  And the significance of those changes depends on whether the UK Government seeks to legislate for a reserved matter – determined ‘by reference to the purpose of the provision, having regard (among other things) to its effect in all the circumstances’ (section29(3)). Legislation to give effect to Brexit clearly relates to a reserved matter.

There is a secondary aspect to this.  Douglas-Scott makes the argument that changing the Scotland Act 1998 to remove references to EU obligations would be needed.  (The key ones are section 29(2)(d) and section 54(2)).  Those references would be constitutionally and politically superfluous, but (at least arguably) binding if they remained in the text of the Act.  If correct, that would require Scotland still to comply with EU obligations after the UK as a whole left the EU, so far as devolved (non-reserved) matters were concerned.  That would be a highly complex and even perverse outcome.  However, this view would seem to be legally mistaken.  The Scotland Act 1998 (as amended) defines EU law as ‘(a) all those rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the EU Treaties, and (b) all those remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the EU Treaties’ (section 126(9)).  It does not define ‘EU Treaties’.  The statutory definition of those is in section 1(2) European Communities Act 1972 (which is one of the ‘protected provisions’ that only Westminster and not Holyrood can change).  If this is repealed through the Great Repeal Bill, references to EU law in the Scotland Act 1998 become meaningless; they would refer to nothing that has legal effects within the UK.  Even if legislative consent were needed for that change, which is unlikely since it concerns a protected provision, the only legal effect of withholding it would be to leave irrelevant clutter in the Scotland Act, not the perverse outcome of the Scottish Parliament being bound to apply EU law when Westminster was not.  Removing those obligations – which only Westminster can do – would simply tidy up the Scotland Act 1998, to Holyrood’s advantage.

On this basis, it would be hard to avoid concluding that devolved legislative consent for Brexit is not needed, at least so far as Scotland is concerned.  (The technicalities of consent are different for Wales, but the same conclusion would appear to be the case there.  The position for Northern Ireland is much more complicated because of the provisions of the Belfast Agreement and the way that affects the Northern Ireland Act 1998.)  However, that was before the England and Wales High Court gave its ruling in the Miller case on the use of prerogative powers to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union for the UK’s departure.  What is important here is not so much the Divisional Court’s ruling that this action required Parliamentary approval, but its reasoning.  The key element of the court’s argument was that, as the Article 50 notice would be irrevocable, it would start a process of leaving the EU that could not be stopped, and the effect of that process would be to remove various rights arising from EU membership.  Those are not simply the rights linked to EU citizenship, but appear to be considerably broader.  The UK Parliament alone could agree to the removal of such rights, applying long-established principles and rules of British constitutional law.

There are reasons why lawyers disagree with the Divisional Court’s ruling (such as Professor Adam Tomkins MSP here), though most agree with it (see, for example, posts on the UK Constitutional Law Association’s blog here).  In any event, the Supreme Court may not agree with the Divisional Court.  But the reasoning about the connection between EU membership and individual rights changes the position regarding legislative consent for Scotland considerably.  That applies even if the Supreme Court were to reach a similar conclusion by a different route, without over-ruling the Divisional Court on this issue.  For Scotland at least, ‘rights’ including human rights are not a reserved matter.  The Human Rights Act 1998, and the Convention rights it enacts, are provisions protected from alteration by the Scottish Parliament, but rights more widely are not.  If Westminster were to interfere with such rights, that does affect a matter within the competence of the Scottish Parliament – which is the test for deciding whether legislative consent is needed under the policy arm of the Sewel convention.  As it affects a devolved matter, it is statutory and that also means it is justiciable by the UK Supreme Court.  Moreover, as this is a constitutional provision so far as the UK is concerned, the requirement needs to be satisfied for the Article 50 notice to be valid (since that must comply with the notice-giving member state’s ‘own constitutional requirements’).

The Supreme Court needs to address this question, as if it is left hanging it will only lead to further legal uncertainty (and litigation, and delay) in the process of Brexit, or yet more political grandstanding with little legal or constitutional foundation.  Only if leaving the EU were not to affect ‘rights’ could the requirement for legislative consent be dispensed with.  It is yet more evidence, if evidence were needed, that the path to the UK leaving the EU is a long, complex, twisting and messy one.

3 Comments

Filed under EU issues, Intergovernmental relations, Legislation, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Westminster

The Draft Wales Bill: analysing the specific reservations

As part of work on the Constitution Unit/Wales Governance project on the Draft Wales Bill leading to the report Challenge and Opportunity: The Draft Wales Bill 2015, I analysed all the specific reservations proposed in the new Schedule 7A in the draft bill.  The point of this analysis was to establish two points.  First, whether the reservations corresponded to reservations or exceptions for Scotland or Northern Ireland – some do, but many do not.  Second, in the absence of any explanation for the reservations in the Explanatory Notes to the draft bill, what the policy rationale for them might reasonably be – whether they related to other functions being reserved, for example.  This repeated an exercise I undertook for the earlier report on the general principles underpinning the ‘reserved powers’ approach.  This analysis underpins the discussion of reservations and their appropriateness in chapter 7 of Challenge and Opportunity.

The resulting table is long and complicated, and including it in the published report would have added hugely to the printing costs but not greatly to its argument or intellectual weight.  Nonetheless, we thought it should be available to those interested.  It runs to some 74 pages, and can be downloaded HERE as a PDF file.

Regarding use of the table, each numbered reservation in Schedule 7A has its own box.  Not all comments do – some apply to several reservations on the same overall matter.  There are some formatting gremlins that affect lay-out (for which apologies), but not clarity or legibility.  The table includes all exceptions from reservations, but in some cases lengthy interpretation clauses have been edited.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatives, Legislation, Wales, Westminster, Whitehall

Not meeting the challenge: The failings of the Draft Wales bill

This blog post first appeared on the LSE’s British Politics and Policy blog, here. It also appears on the Constitution Unit’s blog, Constitution-unit.com, here, on the Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Change’s blog, here and on ClickonWales, the blog of the Institute for Welsh Affairs, here.

I have forborne from commenting in any detail on the Draft Wales Bill before now, other than in giving evidence to the Commons Welsh Affairs Committee, because of my involvement in the joint Constitution Unit/Wales Governance Centre project. The report was published on Monday 1 February, and can be downloaded here as a PDF.

When the Draft Wales Bill was published in October 2015, it was described by Stephen Crabb, the Secretary of State for Wales as delivering on the UK Government’s commitment ‘to create a stronger, clearer and fairer devolution settlement for Wales’. This is badly needed; the history of Welsh devolution since 1998 has been one of short-term solutions that have needed to be revised or replaced within a few years. Hopes were high that the present round of constitutional debate – triggered by the appointment of the Commission on Devolution in Wales chaired by Sir Paul Silk in 2011 – would mark a departure from that established pattern.
Sadly, a close analysis of the Draft Bill shows those hopes to have foundered. A joint project hosted by the Constitution Unit at UCL and the Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University has been looking at the Draft Bill in detail, and publishes its report Challenge and Opportunity: The Draft Wales Bill 2015 today. Our group has been chaired by Alan Cogbill, former Director of the Wales Office in Whitehall, and had Professor Rick Rawlings from UCL as rapporteur. Other members have included Sir Paul Silk and Sir Stephen Laws (formerly First Parliamentary Counsel), academic and practising lawyers from Cardiff, as well as myself. This work follows an earlier joint CU/WGC report published in September 2015, entitled Delivering A Reserved Powers Model of Devolution for Wales (available here as a PDF, and summarised HERE.) Our examination of the Draft Bill has found it to be flawed in many respects.
The first flaw is a conceptual one. The draft bill’s key commitment is to deliver a ‘reserved powers’ approach to Welsh devolution, like that used for Scotland (and with modifications for Northern Ireland). At the same time, it tries to avoid making wider changes to how Welsh devolution works while delivering that. The assumption that the ‘reserved powers’ approach can simply be grafted onto the existing division of law-making powers between Westminster and Cardiff Bay is wrong. The ‘reserved powers’ model necessitates a sequence of other changes, which were already in place for Scotland in 1998, and which need to be considered for Wales.
That flaw is reinforced by the way the Draft Bill has come about. It results from a party-political deal reached by political parties at Westminster, the St David’s Day process, which did not consider the issue of the ‘reserved powers’ approach in any detail. Elaboration of it in the time between publication of the Powers for a Purpose Command paper and the Draft Bill was spent not in an attempt to understand those issues but in a trawl through Whitehall departments to establish what functions they did not wish to see devolved. That sort of approach simply cannot deliver the sort of careful, principles-based legislation needed to create the durable and lasting settlement the Secretary of State seeks.
In order to make the narrow vision of ‘reserved powers’ set out in the draft bill work, it then takes a very narrow approach to how devolved powers should work. The National Assembly will only have a constrained power to legislate where it can show that is necessary, and any further legislation beyond that will be stopped – what our report calls the ‘leeway and lock’ approach. In particular, the Assembly will have restricted powers to make changes to ‘private law’(the law of contract, torts, equity, land law and so on) or criminal law, which in general are common to England and Wales. Such changes will be subject to a ‘necessity test’; the National Assembly will only be able to legislate on those matters when it is necessary for it to do so to give effect to its legislation for a ‘devolved purpose’. This is a high hurdle for any legislation to overcome, and undermines both the ability of the Assembly to pass laws effectively, and the respect due to an elected legislature. It invites the courts to second-guess any legislation the Assembly passes. That in turn will be a horrendously difficult job as it is far from clear what a ‘devolved purpose’ might be – the whole logic of the reserved powers approach is to say that any purpose is devolved, except those specifically reserved to Westminster.
The ‘necessity’ test is also designed to enable the draft bill maintain a single legal jurisdiction for England and Wales without making any change to how that works. The law applicable in Wales (made partly by the National Assembly and partly by the UK Parliament) and that applicable in England (all made by Westminster) will increasingly diverge, and a robust way of addressing such legal differences is essential. The ‘necessity’ test is not it. The result is a further dimension of ‘lock’ on the National Assembly’s powers. One solution – now supported by the Welsh Government, but first proposed by me some time ago (and see also HERE)– is to create a distinct Welsh legal jurisdiction that would continue to share courts and other legal institutions with England. Another would be a robust, ‘rules-based’ approach to resolving conflict-of-law issues. Fudging the matter, as the draft bill does, will not work.
Then we come to the specific reservations set out in the bill. This list is much longer and more extensive than for Scotland. It not only includes such matters as foreign affairs, defence, currency and immigration, but also alcohol and entertainment licensing, the safety of sports grounds, and public sector pay-outs. Many of these are matters reserved only for Wales, and perhaps the reason for reserving them relates to maintaining the shared England-and-Wales legal jurisdiction – but as no explanation is given, it is impossible to tell. They could equally result from matters which particular Whitehall departments wish to hang onto. The result is a complex web of reserved matters, many of which impact on non-reserved (devolved) ones. (A detailed table analysing the reservations can be downloaded in PDF format HERE.) Legislating under such constraints will be an intricate task, the more so with the protection for private and criminal law. Framing a robust, clear and lasting devolution settlement for Wales is incompatible with satisfying bureaucratic concerns about the minutiae of policy variation.
Similar concerns arise with protections for UK ministerial functions relating to Wales. Again, these will be protected unless the Secretary of State consents, so legislation will be subject to a ministerial veto as well as the intervention of the courts.
None of this accords with key constitutional imperatives; the sort of fair, clear and lasting settlement that the Welsh Secretary seeks, or the respect due to an elected legislature with its own democratic mandate. It will certainly drag the courts into deciding what is within Welsh devolved powers and what is beyond them, at almost every turn. The result would be a messy, inconsistent and incoherent settlement, quite unlike the approach for Scotland or Northern Ireland, which will probably be short-lived and in need of being replaced in a few years’ time. It is little wonder that the Draft Bill has attracted such widespread criticism in Wales, whether from the Welsh Government, its Counsel General, the National Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and all parties in the Assembly as a whole, or a range of professional bodies and other civil-society actors.
So what should be done now? There needs to be a much more considered process that addresses the difficult issues that a ‘reserved powers’ approach creates, and tries to find lasting and workable solutions rather than quick fixes. The constitutional imperative should be a clear, fair and lasting settlement, based on principles which voters can understand and which not keeping Whitehall departments happy or minimising the impact on the legal system and shared jurisdiction of England and Wales. The ‘necessity’ test will need to go; the Assembly has to be able to act freely when it comes to using the mechanisms of private and criminal law to make its legislation work, and substitutes like a test based on ‘reasonableness’ or ‘appropriateness’ will not serve – they will still require the courts to scrutinise in detail the Assembly’s legislative decisions. An effective form of devolution means transferring meaningful authority to the National Assembly – as has already been conferred on the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly.
The Welsh Secretary has had a commendable ambition to put Welsh devolution on a clear, fair and lasting footing. Sadly, the draft bill does not meet up to the challenge he set himself, but the opportunity remains to be seized.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatives, Publications and projects, Wales, Westminster, Whitehall

Launch of report on the Draft Wales Bill

With a number of colleagues from the Constitution Unit and the Wales Governance Centre, I have been working for some time on a major examination of the Draft Wales Bill published in October. This follows our earlier report written over the summer on issues of a ‘reserved powers’ model more generally. We’ve now finished our work and are shortly going to launch our new report, which is entitled Challenge and Opportunity: The Draft Wales Bill 2015. There will be two events – one in Cardiff at lunchtime on Monday 1 February, and one in Westminster late in the afternoon of Tuesday 2 February. Both events are free to attend but registration is necessary.

The Cardiff event starts at 12.30 pm in the Main Hall of the Pierhead. Speakers will be Professor Rick Rawlings from UCL, who drafted the report, Alan Cogbill who chaired the group, and Emyr Lewis of Blake Morgan, another member of the group. Fuller details and registration (through Eventbrite) are here.

The London event will be at 5 pm and takes place in the Wilson Room in Portcullis House, on the Parliamentary Estate Committee Room 6 in the Palace of Westminster. Speakers will include Rick Rawlings, Richard Wyn Jones and myself.  Please allow plenty of time to get through Parliamentary security. Email wgc@cardiff.ac.uk to register your attendance.

UPDATE, 2 February: The report Challenge and Opportunity: The Draft Wales Bill 2015 can now be downloaded from here as a PDF.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Courts and legal issues, Events, Legislation, Publications and projects, Wales, Westminster

The Enterprise bill: public sector pay-outs and devolution

Having made its way through the Lords, the Enterprise bill will get its Commons second reading next Tuesday. In many ways, this bill exemplifies bad post-devolution legislation, as it’s a portmanteau bill with provisions on a range of subjects including a Small Business Commissioner, non-domestic rates, late payment of insurances claims, regulatory reform and other matters. Some of these provisions relate only to England, some of them mainly affect England but have knock-on effects for devolved functions in various parts of the UK, some of the bill’s provisions are UK-wide or GB-wide and relate to reserved/non-devolved matters – but others are intended to apply across the UK or Great Britain while affecting devolved matters. To make matters worse, it extensively amends existing legislation, so working out exactly what it does is no easy task.

One clause that is particularly striking is clause 35, which deals with ‘public sector exit payments’ – redundancy and similar payments made to people leaving public sector employment. It covers not only redundancy and ex gratia payments but also contractual obligations such as pay in lieu of notice or for outstanding leave entitlements, and limits the sum total of such payments to £95,000. The bill delivers a Conservative manifesto promise to ‘end taxpayer-funded six-figure payoffs for the best paid public sector workers’.  These have been particularly notable in recent times with the shake-out of the public sector arising from austerity and also major reorganisations of services, which have often led to individuals taking a pay-off from one job and then moving straight into another.  Another side of the coin, for very senior posts, is how to remove a senior figure like a chief executive who cannot work with a changed political leadership, a common problem in local government. An amicable redundancy settlement has usually been the way to resolve that. (As an aside, putting the figure of £95,000 onto the face of the bill is unusual and likely to cause serious practical difficulties in future, as inflation erodes the value of that amount.)

As is well known, the management of the public sector generally is a devolved matter for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, employment law is reserved in Scotland (by Head H in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998), an undevolved ‘silent subject’ not mentioned in Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 for Wales, though devolved in Northern Ireland. (For Wales, this means the Assembly can legislate for matters affecting employment law where this is necessary for enforcement or making effective a provision relating to a devolved subject, or otherwise incidental or consequential to such legislation; see section 108(5) Government of Wales Act 2006.) So clause 35 has the scope to affect devolved matters considerably if it applies in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

The Enterprise bill itself is silent about the territorial extent of this clause, which means it extends to all parts of the United Kingdom. The Explanatory notes contain a table confirming that the provision applies to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and saying ‘not applicable’ when identifying whether it is devolved or not. That conclusion is doubtful in each case. In Scotland the Scottish Parliament is to consider a legislative consent motion assenting to the clause – approval has been recommended by both the Scottish Government in its legislative consent memorandum and by the Parliament’s Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Similarly, in Northern Ireland the matter has been considered by the Assembly’s Finance and Personnel Committee which expressed a number of concerns about the bill but recommended approval via an LCM. In Wales, although there has been an LCM, this relates only to the ‘Small Business Commissioner’ and non-domestic rating provisions of the bill and not the public sector payout ones.  Those have not been considered by the National Assembly.

What makes the Welsh position even odder is the provision in the Draft Wales Bill published in October to make such public sector payouts a reserved matter. Reservations 144 and 145 in the new Schedule 7A included to the draft bill reserve the following:

144. Schemes for the payment of compensation for or in respect of public sector workers in respect of—
(a) incapacity or death as a result of injury or illness,
(b) loss of office or employment, or
(c) loss or diminution of emoluments.

145. Regulation of amounts payable, or paid, to or in respect of public sector workers in consequence of leaving office or employment.

The upshot would be that Scotland and Northern Ireland will be free to alter the application of the UK rules at some future time, if they wish, while accepting arguments at present for the desirability of having similar rules across the UK. Wales will not; the proposed reservation would prevent it from ever doing so, if it makes it into enacted legislation. That not only distinguishes Welsh devolution from that for Scotland and Northern Ireland, for no very clear reason, but also hampers the ability of the National Assembly and Welsh Government to organise and management the devolved Welsh public sector effectively.

BIS, and its predecessor departments, have never had a reputation for being particularly supportive of devolution. (The department is of course also currently promoting the Trade Union bill, which has raised much anger, and questions of whether devolved legislative consent is needed – previously discussed HERE.) It has also a long track record of being insensitive to devolution questions when they arise, which the Enterprise bill exemplifies. What it doesn’t appear to have realised is that times have changed. Ten years ago, such mis-steps were merely inconvenient and inconsiderate. Now, they have much wider political and constitutional implications.

4 Comments

Filed under Conservatives, Legislation, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Westminster, Whitehall

Legislative consent in Wales

The Sewel convention has rightly come to be seen as key to the working of devolution in the United Kingdom. It may have first been envisaged as a way of enabling Westminster to continue to legislate for devolved matters and maintaining something like the practical pre-devolution status quo in policy-making, when convenient and politically acceptable, but it was quickly understood to mean more than that.

One reason may be that devolved legislative powers are more far-reaching than was at first appreciated. More important, though, is the emergence of the ‘constitutional’ dimension of the convention. The wording used in the Memorandum of Understanding (first agreed in 1999 and not changed since then) may refer to ‘the UK Parliament … not normally legislat[ing] with regard to devolved matters except with the agreement of the devolved legislatures’, but Devolution Guidance Note 10 on Post Devolution Primary Legislation regarding Scotland has been clear that consent is also required where there are changes to the functions of the Scottish Executive/Government or Parliament.  This means that functions cannot be removed from the devolved tier of government without its consent.  It also means functions cannot be added without consent, meaning that the UK tier cannot get rid of inconvenient functions, or transfer them without adequate funding, if a devolved legislature objects.

Continue reading

5 Comments

Filed under Legislation, Wales, Westminster

Legislative consent for the Trade Union bill?

In a speech at the SNP conference in Aberdeen, Grahame Smith of the STUC has apparently argued that the impact of the Trade Union bill currently before the UK Parliament is such that it requires legislative consent from Holyrood under the Sewel convention – ‘a consent that I am confident would not be forthcoming’, so in reality a veto on the bill at least for Scotland. The bill is unsurprisingly under heavy criticism not just from the STUC but also the Greens and Rise. The UK Government does not believe that the bill needs legislative consent, however (see Annex A of the Explanatory Note, available here; the bill itself is here as a PDF document).

Constitutionally speaking, it’s hard to disagree with the UK Government’s view. Industrial relations and trade union law, like employment law more generally, remains a reserved matter under Head H1 of the Scotland Act 1998, beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The criteria for legislative consent under the Sewel convention are set out in Devolution Guidance Note 10 on Post – Devolution Primary Legislation affecting Scotland (available here as a PDF). Consent is not needed for bills which do not apply to Scotland at all; which apply to Scotland but ‘relate to’ reserved matters and do not alter Scots law on non-reserved matters; or which contain provisions applying to Scotland and relating to reserved matters, though they may make incidental or consequential changes to Scots law on non-reserved matters.  Consent is only needed if the bill ‘contains provisions applying to Scotland and which are for devolved purposes, or which alter the legislative competence of the Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers’.

Continue reading

6 Comments

Filed under Legislation, Northern Ireland, Policy issues, Scotland, SNP, Wales, Westminster