Second Lords committee calls for Scotland Bill to be halted

Another House of Lords committee has called for the Scotland Bill to be halted owing to fears it will create “serious risks of future disputes and instability” in the country.

The Constitution Committee said in its report that the powers in the bill would diminish the sovereignty of Parliament and result in “uncertainty”.

The news follows a similar claim from the Economic Affairs Committee last week.

In its report A fracturing Union? The Economic Affairs Committee said there is a lack of adequate information and transparency about the process, stating: “Nobody knows what is going on”.

Peers expressed particular worry about the “fiscal framework” – the arrangement ministers in London and Edinburgh are working out to determine the amount of money raised by new devolved taxes and Scotland’s share from UK-wide taxes.

Conservative peer, Lord Lang, chair of the Constitution Committee, said the Scotland Bill’s measures seem intended to “limit Parliament’s competence to legislate”.

The peer criticised the “hasty decision” by party leaders to implement the Smith Commission’s recommendations for more powers following the outcome of the independence referendum last year.

He went on to attack the “permanence” of the Scottish Parliament guaranteed by the bill, saying the measures ought to be postponed until both governments can agree on the use of the powers through a memorandum of understanding.

He said: “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.”

He added: “We also point out that at the root of many of the committee’s concerns about the bill is the inappropriate and urgent process by which these significant constitutional proposals have come about.

“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.”

Speaking to Scottish Legal News, Stephen Tierney, professor of constitutional theory at Edinburgh University and legal adviser to the Constitution Committee said: “A very interesting development from a constitutional perspective is a redrafted clause 1 which declares the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish government to be ‘a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements’, that ‘are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum’.

“The committee argues that ‘here is now a strong argument that Parliament is seeking to limit its own competence in a way that the courts may seek to uphold in future’.

“A point of criticism for the committee, as it was for the Economic Affairs Committee reporting last week, is that no fiscal framework has yet been published.

“The committee also emphasises that, in light of the range of shared powers that are contained in the bill, inter-governmental relations will be an ever more pressing issue.”

A spokesman for Deputy First Minister John Swinney said: “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.”