Administrative law implications of devolution in the UK: challenges and opportunities
Administrative Law Implications of Devolution in the UK: Challenges and Opportunities
1. Background: What is Devolution?
Devolution in the UK refers to the transfer of certain legislative and administrative powers from the UK Parliament in Westminster to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd, and Northern Ireland Assembly.
These devolved bodies have competence over specific policy areas (e.g., health, education, transport), but the UK Parliament retains sovereignty and certain reserved matters.
Devolution has created multi-layered governance with complex legal and administrative relationships between central and devolved governments.
2. Administrative Law Implications
Opportunities:
Localized Decision-Making: Devolved administrations can tailor policies and administrative decisions closer to local needs.
Innovative Public Administration: Diverse approaches to governance and public service delivery.
Enhanced Accountability: Devolved governments are directly accountable to their regional electorates, potentially improving responsiveness.
Judicial Review Growth: New avenues for challenging administrative decisions made by devolved bodies.
Challenges:
Complexity and Legal Uncertainty: Overlapping jurisdictions and potential conflicts between UK-wide and devolved law.
Intergovernmental Relations: Coordination and dispute resolution between UK government and devolved administrations can be strained.
Judicial Review Complexity: Courts must interpret and enforce constitutional principles across different levels of government.
Asymmetric Devolution: Different powers and procedures among Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland create varied administrative law landscapes.
3. Key Cases Illustrating the Administrative Law Implications of Devolution
A. AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46
Facts:
The Scottish Parliament passed legislation removing the right to pursue certain personal injury claims retrospectively.
AXA General Insurance challenged the legislation as incompatible with EU law principles and the rule of law.
Issue:
Whether the Scottish Parliament’s legislation was lawful and compatible with constitutional principles, including the rule of law.
Holding:
The UK Supreme Court held that the Scottish Parliament could pass legislation with retrospective effects but that the rule of law requires limits on such powers.
Importantly, the Scottish legislation was found lawful, recognizing the legislative competence of devolved bodies.
Significance:
Demonstrates that devolved legislatures have significant autonomy, but within constitutional constraints.
Highlights the challenge of balancing legislative autonomy with overarching constitutional principles like the rule of law.
B. R (Miller) v The Prime Minister (Miller No. 2) [2019] UKSC 41
Facts:
The UK Prime Minister advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks during Brexit negotiations.
The legality of this prorogation was challenged.
Issue:
While primarily about UK executive power, the case involved devolved administrations' interests and the constitutional structure of the UK.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled the prorogation unlawful because it frustrated Parliament’s constitutional role.
The decision recognized the constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny, including devolved legislatures.
Significance:
Emphasizes that devolution is a constitutional reality affecting UK governance.
Highlights the administrative law principle that government action must respect constitutional balances, including devolved institutions.
C. AXA Insurance plc v The Lord Advocate (No. 2) [2012] UKSC 46 (follow-up to the AXA case)
Facts:
Following the legislative impugned in AXA, challenges continued about the limits of devolved legislative power and its administrative effects.
Issue:
How courts balance the devolved competence with constitutional safeguards.
Holding:
Courts reiterated the devolved legislatures' broad competence but affirmed the limits imposed by the UK’s constitutional framework.
Significance:
This reinforced the judicial role in supervising the exercise of devolved powers to prevent constitutional overreach.
Administrative decisions under devolved legislation must comply with UK constitutional standards.
D. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5
Facts:
The UK government intended to trigger Article 50 to leave the EU without devolved legislatures’ consent.
Issue:
Whether devolved legislatures had a legal right to consent or be consulted.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that triggering Article 50 did not require devolved consent under the UK constitutional framework, though consultation was politically advisable.
Significance:
Highlights tensions between devolved autonomy and UK-wide powers.
Raises questions about the scope of devolved administrative decision-making in constitutional matters.
E. R (Miller) v The Lord Chancellor (UNISON) [2017] UKSC 51
Facts:
Challenges to employment tribunal fees that disproportionately affected access to justice.
Issue:
While not solely about devolution, the ruling impacted devolved administrative justice systems.
Holding:
The Supreme Court declared fees unlawful as they infringed the constitutional right to access justice.
Significance:
Reinforces the principle that devolved administrations’ decisions must uphold fundamental constitutional rights.
Shows administrative law’s role in checking devolved governments' policies affecting rights.
F. R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 3) [2018] UKSC 3
Facts:
Concerns the Overseas Territories, but relevant for devolution because it deals with constitutional governance and administrative decisions in different UK jurisdictions.
Issue:
Legality of orders affecting the rights of inhabitants in a territory.
Holding:
The Supreme Court confirmed judicial scrutiny of administrative acts affecting fundamental rights, regardless of jurisdiction.
Significance:
Demonstrates that constitutional and administrative law principles apply across devolved and non-devolved territories.
Shows judiciary’s role in ensuring legality of administrative action wherever governance is exercised.
4. Summary of Challenges and Opportunities
| Challenges | Opportunities |
|---|---|
| Complex jurisdictional boundaries leading to legal uncertainty | Localized and responsive administrative decisions |
| Potential for conflict between devolved and UK governments | Innovation in public service and governance |
| Judicial review complexity involving multi-layered authorities | Enhanced accountability through devolved legislatures |
| Asymmetry in powers among Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland | Development of distinct administrative law cultures |
5. Conclusion
Devolution has transformed UK administrative law by introducing multi-level governance and a more complex constitutional framework. While it presents challenges of coordination, legal complexity, and balancing competences, it also offers opportunities for more tailored governance, stronger accountability, and rich judicial development.
The UK courts continue to play a crucial role in navigating this evolving landscape, ensuring that both devolved administrations and the UK government act within constitutional and legal boundaries.
RELATED Blog
0 comments