Re UK Withdrawal From The European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lady Hale,Lord Reed,Lord Kerr,Lord Sumption,Lord Carnwath,Lord Hodge,Lord Lloyd-Jones |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] UKSC 64 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Scotland) |
| Docket Number | No 2 |
| Date | 13 December 2018 |
[2018] UKSC 64
Lady Hale, President
Lord Reed, Deputy President
Lord Kerr
Lord Sumption
Lord Carnwath
Lord Hodge
Lord Lloyd-Jones
Supreme Court
Michaelmas Term
Applicants
(The Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland)
Lord Keen of Elie, Advocate General for Scotland
Sir James Eadie QC
Jason Coppel QC
Margaret Gray
BJ Gill
(Instructed by The Government Legal Department)
Lord Advocate
W James Wolffe QC, Her Majesty's Advocate
James Mure QC
Christine O'Neill
Lesley Irvine
(Instructed by The Scottish Government Legal Directorate)
Counsel General for Wales
Michael Fordham QC
Hollie Higgins
(Instructed by Welsh Government Legal Services Department)
Attorney General for Northern Ireland
John F Larkin QC, Attorney General for Northern Ireland
(Instructed by Office of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland)
Heard on 24 and 25 July 2018
Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge AND
Does the Scottish Parliament have power to legislate for the continuity of laws relating to devolved matters in Scotland which are now the subject of European Union (“EU”) law but which will cease to have effect after the United Kingdom (“UK”) withdraws from the EU? That is the principal subject matter of a reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland (“the UK Law Officers”) to this court under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 as amended (“the Scotland Act”).
This is the judgment of the court. Factual background
On 29 March 2017 the UK Government notified the European Council of its decision that the UK would withdraw from the EU in accordance with article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (“article 50” and “TEU”). Subject to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) on the reference by the Inner House of the Court of Session on the revocability of article 50 or unless a withdrawal agreement were to provide otherwise or there were to be unanimous agreement of the member states of the EU to an extension of the time limit for withdrawal set out in article 50, the UK will cease to be a member of the EU on 29 March 2019.
So long as the UK is a member of the EU, EU law governs matters within its sphere in each of the jurisdictions of the UK without differentiation. When the Scotland Act was enacted, the power to amend EU law, the body of rights and obligations which are binding on all EU member states, resided with the EU institutions. It still so resides. But on the UK's withdrawal from the EU (“UK withdrawal”), and subject to any agreement to the contrary, EU law will cease to bind the UK and its constituent jurisdictions.
Many of our laws are the product of EU legislation through directly applicable EU Regulations, decisions and tertiary legislation, or are derived from EU law, for example by the implementation in our domestic legal systems of EU obligations such as those contained in EU Directives. To achieve legal continuity and to promote legal certainty it is considered necessary to incorporate direct EU legislation into domestic law and to preserve the effect of EU-derived domestic legislation after UK withdrawal.
On 13 July 2017 the UK Government introduced in the House of Commons the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (“the UK Bill”) to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and to achieve legal continuity within each of the jurisdictions of the UK after withdrawal from the EU. That Bill was not passed by both Houses of Parliament until 20 June 2018. It received Royal Assent on 26 June 2018, becoming the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“the UK Withdrawal Act”).
Both before and during the passage through Parliament of the UK Bill, the UK Government discussed its terms with representatives of devolved institutions in the UK. After proposed amendments to the UK Bill, which the Scottish Government supported, were defeated in the House of Commons, the Scottish Government introduced the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill (“the Scottish Bill”) in the Scottish Parliament on 27 February 2018. In accordance with section 31 of the Scotland Act 1998 both the Deputy First Minister of the Scottish Government (John Swinney MSP), who introduced the Bill, and the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament (Rt Hon Kenneth Macintosh MSP) issued statements on the legislative competence of the Scottish Bill when it was introduced to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government expressed the view that the Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The Presiding Officer expressed the view that it would not, because the Bill, which would be enacted before the UK withdrew from the EU, would not be compatible with EU law at the time when the Scottish Parliament passed the legislation. In short, the Presiding Officer opined that the Scottish Parliament could not seek to exercise competence before that competence had been transferred to it and that provisions in the Bill, which postponed the legal effect of the legislation until UK withdrawal, did not alter the Parliament's competence at the time when the legislation was passed.
The Scottish Parliament passed the Scottish Bill on 21 March 2018. This resulted in the reference to this court under section 33(1) of the Scotland Act which provides that the Advocate General, the Lord Advocate or the Attorney General “may refer the question of whether a Bill or any provision of a Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament to the Supreme Court for decision”. The reference was made within four weeks of the passing of the Scottish Bill in accordance with section 33(2) of the Scotland Act. The Lord Advocate has responded to the reference and has submitted that the Scottish Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Parliament was not the only devolved legislature that sought to pass legislation to provide for domestic legal continuity after the UK's withdrawal from the EU on exit day. After the UK Parliament did not accept amendments to the UK Bill which the First Minister of Wales supported, the Welsh Assembly passed legislation to similar effect as the Scottish Bill in the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill (“the Welsh Bill”). This resulted in a reference by the Attorney General to this court under section 112(1) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 in relation to the Welsh Bill. But, after agreement was reached between the Welsh Government and the UK Government on 24 April 2018 which resulted in amendments to clause 11 of the UK Bill (now section 12 of the UK Withdrawal Act) and the Welsh Assembly gave legislative consent to the UK Bill, the Attorney General has withdrawn that reference. The Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Act 2018 received the Royal Assent on 6 June 2018 and came into force on the following day by virtue of section 21.
Nonetheless, the questions which this reference raises have implications not only for the Scottish Parliament but also for the other devolved legislatures of the UK. The Counsel General to the Welsh Government and the Attorney General for Northern Ireland have therefore appeared as interveners and have addressed the court. We are very grateful to them for their assistance.
Withdrawal from the EU will result in legislative powers, which are currently vested in EU institutions, being transferred to institutions in the UK. There has been and is a political debate as to which institutions within the UK should best exercise those powers in the public interest. It is not the role of this court to form or express any view on those questions of policy, which are the responsibility of our elected representatives and in which the wider civil society has an interest. Our role is simply to determine as a matter of law whether and to what extent the Scottish Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. That question is answered, as we explain below, by analysing the provisions of the Scotland Act.
Since the Scottish Parliament commenced its work on 2 July 1999, the courts have had occasion to interpret the law by which it is governed. The main principles may be summarised as follows. The powers of the Scottish Parliament, like those of Parliaments in many other constitutional democracies, are delimited by law. The Scottish Parliament is a democratically elected legislature with a mandate to make laws for people in Scotland. It has plenary powers within the limits of its legislative competence. But it does not enjoy the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament; rules delimiting its legislative competence are found in section 29 of and Schedules 4 and 5 to the Scotland Act, to which the courts must give effect. And the UK Parliament also has power to make laws for Scotland, a power which the legislation of the Scottish Parliament cannot affect: section 28(7) of the Scotland Act. The Scotland Act must be interpreted in the same way as any other statute. The courts have regard to its aim to achieve a constitutional settlement and therefore recognise the importance of giving a consistent and predictable interpretation of the Scotland Act so that the Scottish Parliament has a coherent, stable and workable system within which to exercise its legislative power. This is achieved by interpreting the rules as to competence in the Scotland Act according to the ordinary meaning of the words used.
These statements of the law can be found in Whaley v Lord Watson 2000 SC 340, 348–349 per the Lord President (Lord Rodger); Martin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allister (James Hugh) et al’s Application AND In the matter of the Protocol NI
...Parliament remains central to the UK constitution. [208] In UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill [2018] UKSC 64, [2019] AC 1022 the court considered a Bill of the Scottish Parliament which sought to limit extensive UK wide regulation making powers that ha......
-
Reference by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998
...more than a loose or consequential connection: Martin v Most, para 49; Imperial Tobacco, para 16; and In re UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill [2018] UKSC 64; [2019] AC 1022; 2019 SC (UKSC) 13 (“ Continuity Bill”), para (ii) The case that the proposed......
-
Spuc (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) Pro–Life LTD's Application and The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and Rosaleen McElhinney Intervening and Spuc Pro – Life LTD Application for Judicial Review and The Minister of Health for Northern Ireland
...in its judgment in Allister and others [2021] NIQB 64: “[208] In UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill [2018] UKSC 64, [2019] AC 1022 the court considered a Bill of the Scottish Parliament which sought to limit extensive UK wide regulation making powers th......
-
McCord (Raymond), JR83 and Jamie Waring's Applications v The Prime Minister and others
...[2012] UKSC 53 at [80]. Most recently one finds an emphasis on “ the ordinary meaning of the words used”: UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill [2019] 2 WLR 1 at [12]. I add the observation, of obvious importance, that neither NIA 1998 nor the internation......
-
So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Adieu: Brexit and the Charter of Fundamental Rights
...exit dayand relate to EU law which sections 2, 3 and 4 would save or incorporate into Scots law. Thiswas considered in the AG’sReference [2018] UKSC 64 at [102]. As the Supreme Court noted, theLord Advocate correctly conceded that this section was a modification of the UK WithdrawalAct, s 5(......