Scotland, Sewel, and the Human Rights Act

18 July 2015 by

Photo credit: Guardian

Photo credit: Guardian

The Queen’s speech suggests a slowing of the Government’s plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights. But recent comments from the Scottish Human Rights Commissioner suggest the Conservatives may be considering removal of HRA protections in relation to English and reserved UK-wide matters only, leaving the Human Rights Act in place in the other devolved areas of the UK. 

by David Scott

Much ink has been spilled over the Government’s proposals. This article will take a narrow look at Scotland’s relationship with the Human Rights Act, and how devolution may be a future thorn in the Government’s side. 

But wait! I thought the Human Rights Act was enshrined in the Scotland Act. Doesn’t that protect the Human Rights Act in Scotland?

Sort of (not really).

The oft-quoted representative of the Scotland Office’s maxim (“human rights legislation is devolved to the Scottish Parliament because it was “built into the 1998 Scotland Act [and] cannot be removed [by Westminster]””) is sadly mistaken. It’s true that the Scotland Act enshrines a number of human rights protections. Section 29(1) states that “an Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament”, with section 29(2)(d) listing incompatibility with “any of the Convention rights” as outside legislative competence. Similarly, under section 57(2), a member of the Scottish Government “has no power to make any subordinate legislation, or to do any other act, so far as the legislation or act is incompatible with any of the Convention rights”. These sections, however, incorporate Convention rights directly, entirely bypassing the Human Rights Act.

As Professor Aileen McHarg explained before on this very blog, this effectively leaves Scotland with two co-existent domestic human rights regimes: the narrower protection guaranteed by the Scotland Act, and the wider duty on public authorities guaranteed by section 6 of the Human Rights Act.

While Schedule 4 of the Scotland Act does list the Human Rights Act as an “enactment protected from modification”, this only prevents modification by an Act of the Scottish Parliament—it gives no protection from Westminster. Basic constitutional theory tells us that nothing can be protectively “written into” the Scotland Act; the Human Rights Act was passed by the Westminster Parliament, and that very same Parliament can choose to repeal it. 

Sewel and the Scotland Act

Now this is where things get interesting. While the Human Rights Act is protected under Schedule 4, human rights at large in Scotland are not a reserved matter under Schedule 5. And while Westminster can legislate to alter its own law, it cannot legislate on non-reserved matters without taking into account something called the Sewel Convention—the agreement that Westminster will only act on Scottish matters with the consent of Holyrood.

A little history on the Sewel Convention. Named after Lord John Sewel, the Scottish Office Minister in the House of Lords who oversaw the enactment of the Scotland Act 1998, it was later put on record in the 1999 Memorandum of Understanding concluded between the UK Government and the devolved administrations. While obviously useful to protect the fundamental purpose of devolution—that is, legislative control free from Westminster interference—it has widely been utilised as a harmonising measure, allowing devolved legislatures to vote on the adoption of so-called “Sewel motions” to authorise Westminster changes on devolved matters. Sewel motions have been used to introduce UK-wide legislation on, amongst other things, civil partnerships, adoptions, children, and tobacco advertising.

Let’s return to the HRA. If its repeal would affect the devolved matter  of human rights in Scotland—which it would, removing the wider domestic applicability of the ECHR for the police, schools, local authorities, prisons, etc etc—then the Sewel Convention would kick in, requiring Parliament to seek Holyrood’s approval before making any legislative changes. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has made it clear that she will seek cross-party support to block repeal of the HRA, meaning Holyrood acquiescence will not likely be forthcoming.

Couldn’t the Government simply bulldoze its repeals through, even without authorisation from up North? There’s a twist in the tale. The Sewel Convention is set to be written into the Scotland Act by the Scotland Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament. Section 2 of that Bill would add:

The Sewel convention

In section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Acts of the Scottish Parliament) at the end add—

“(8) But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.””

Now it’s likely that Scotland already sat on pretty strong legal grounds—considering the long-standing existence of the Sewel convention—to argue that action without Scottish approval would be illegitimate and ineffective. But the express writing-in of the convention to the Scotland Act would make it impossible to ignore.

As discussed at the head of this article, there are rumours the Government is considering a more piece-meal repeal of the HRA, limited to  England and on reserved matters. One can already foresee the headaches this would cause. Take as one example the proposed Public Services Ombudsman, who would take over the remit and responsibilities of both the existing English ombudsman bodies and the UK-wide jurisdiction of the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman. With different human rights arrangements throughout the UK, the potential operational difficulties are obvious.

 A final thought

Let’s say that, somehow, the Government proceeds to repeal the Human Rights Act nationwide, either in violation of the Sewel convention or off the back of a UK-wide referendum. There’s a final Scottish wrinkle to the story. Following the election, Sturgeon made clear that her party would not seek a second referendum on Scottish independence unless there is “a change of circumstances that has led to people by majority opinion wanting another referendum”. What kind of change in circumstances? “It would have to be something like the EU situation, if there was an out vote across the UK and Scotland wants to stay in”.

It is possible that unilateral repeal of the HRA by Westminster would produce “the groundswell of anger among ordinary people in Scotland” to “produce a clamour for another independence referendum which may well be unstoppable”. Would the SNP win on such a manifesto promise? Would Westminster allow another referendum, or accept its result? Could Scotland claim a right to unilateral secession in the face of Westminster refusal? (The last one may be a stretch.)

Those are questions for another time. But it’s worth considering the bind the Government has placed itself in. Abandon its plans because of devolution disagreement and face the wrath of its most ardent unionists; force through its plans and again risk breaking apart the UK.

(For a discussion of the potential constitutional fallout in Northern Ireland see the Director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice, Brian Gormally’s paper here.)

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: