THE House of Lords have been told to delay progress of the Scotland Bill by a senior committee of peers, who say the permanence of the Scottish Parliament risks undermining parliamentary sovereignty.
It is the second Lords committee to recommend delaying the bill in the space of a week.
Speaking ahead of today’s debate in the upper chamber on the Scotland Bill, Lord Lang, chairman of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, said there were too many unknowns in the “significant constitutional implications” of the bill.
A spokesperson for Deputy First Minister John Swinney said the permanence of the Scottish Parliament was part of the Vow, and that it would now be up to MSPs to properly scrutinise the Scotland Bill and the fiscal framework.
Launching his committee’s report into the bill, Lang said: “We are concerned that the House is being asked to debate and scrutinise the bill without the necessary information. The bill creates serious risks of future disputes and instability. The House should consider whether to delay progress of the bill until a new Memorandum of Understanding is published setting out how the UK and Scottish governments will work together to manage areas of shared and concurrent powers, and how they will resolve disputes between their administrations.”
Lang, who served as John Major’s secretary of state for Scotland between 1990 and 1995, said: “The Scotland Bill also states the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Government in law for the first time, while setting in statute the Sewel Convention.
“These measures seem designed to limit Parliament’s competence to legislate. The concept of parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of the United Kingdom’s constitution. Seeking to limit future parliaments in this way undermines that principle.
“In particular, the hasty decision, taken in advance by the leaders of the three main political parties, to implement the recommendations of the Smith Commission appears to have pre-empted any possibility of meaningful discussion on the merits of the proposals contained in the bill. The political parties are constrained by the Vow and by the continuing absence of much still -unpublished information that is need for proper debate. Parliament is therefore still unable to debate meaningfully the merits of the proposals.”
The committee’s report echoes calls from the House of Lords’ economic affairs committee released last week. That too recommended delaying the committee stage of the Scotland Bill until the fiscal framework – the understanding between Whitehall and St Andrew’s House on the financial matters underpinning the new powers – is made public.
The committee also said the Lords believed that a Memorandum of Understanding currently being negotiated between the three devolved administrations and the UK Government should be published before the Scotland Bill progresses further. The report warned that new powers allowing the Scottish Parliament to change the rules might not be workable with the European Convention on Human Rights unless Scotland grants prisoners the right to vote.
A spokesperson for John Swinney: “The three main Westminster parties made a solemn Vow to the people of Scotland on the eve of the referendum, and it is imperative that the UK Government delivers on the full package of powers recommended in the Smith Agreement.
“It was disappointing that so little time was allotted by the UK Government for the third reading of the Scotland Bill in the House of Commons, but the Scottish Government has already made clear that MSPs will have the chance to scrutinise the fiscal framework.
“Ultimately, the key vote that matters will be in the Scottish Parliament – not in the unelected House of Lords – and we will never support anything which sells Scotland short.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here