A DATE has been set for a high-profile clash between London and Edinburgh over Holyrood’s powers.
The UK Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for challenges raised by the UK Government’s law officers against two recent Scottish Parliament Bills.
Five justices, including Lord Reed, the Scottish judge who is President of the Court, will hear the related cases on June 28 and 29.
The Bills both incorporate outside standards into Scots law - the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and European Charter of Local Self-Government.
The UNCRC Bill is intended to give enhanced legal protection to children by obliging public bodies to respect their rights and comply with UNCRC requirements.
MSPs passed both Bills unanimously in March but they have not received royal assent and so are not yet law because of the referral to the Supreme Court.
The UK Government argues they encroach on Westminster’s sovereign powers.
The Supreme Court could uphold the Bills as competent or send them back to Holyrood for amending.
The last Holyrood Bill referred to the Court was about Brexit in 2018.
The Court found it was largely competent when passed, but the referral and delay meant it was overtaken and rendered defunct by later Westminster legislation.
SNP ministers have called the latest referral “menacing” and a “blatant power grab” by London.
READ MORE: John Swinney accuses Westminster of 'power grab' over children's rights Bill
The UNCRC Bill was raised frequently by SNP politicians during the recent Holyrood election campaign, leading to a rare rebuke by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.
Roddy Dunlop QC said it was not "shameful", as the SNP claimed, for the UK Government to contest the Bill.
"No one queries the rights of children," he said.
"The question is the competence of Scottish Parliament.
"It’s a constitutional question, not a political one."
At FMQs on Thursday, Nicola Sturgeon said the UK Government had challenged the UNCRC Bill because it didn’t want its decisions “on things such as immigration to be subject to that kind of legal protection and scrutiny”.
However, as immigration is reserved, this would suggest the Bill is indeed straying beyond Holyrood’s powers.
She also said it “illustrates, again, why we need more powers being taken out of the hands of the Tory Government at Westminster and put into the hands of this Government and this Parliament”.
A Supreme Court statement on the “facts” of the cases said the UK law officers “do not take issue” with Holyrood’s power to incorporate versions of the treaties into Scots law.
Rather, they were concerned that “both Bills would bestow upon the Scottish courts extensive powers to interpret and scrutinise primary legislation passed by the sovereign UK Parliament”.
As that would modify Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, the UK law officers considered parts of the Bills were therefore “outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”.
The UK law officers are also seeking the Court’s guidance on the correct reading of the Bills to ensure they are within Holyrood’s legislative competence, “if such a reading is possible”.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon denies 'weaponising children's rights' to pick fight on constitution
The Court website said the Counsel General for Wales had also given notice of his intention to participate in the references as a relevant UK Law Officer.
The Lord Advocate, James Wolffe QC, was yesterday due to lodge a written case with the Court setting out the SNP Government’s position.
However he is unlikely to present arguments to the Court himself next month, as he is standing down imminently, making the case an early test for his successor.
As the matter is currently before the Court, the Scottish Government declined to comment.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel