Overview: Economic and Safety Regulation

Abstract

The UK Supreme Court decided four cases involving aspects of economic and safety regulation in 2012–13. In two cases, the Supreme Court dealt with issues related to product safety. Imperial Tobacco Ltd v Lord Advocate1 was the first case challenging the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to regulate in respect of reservations laid down by the Scotland Act 19982. The Appellant argued that the prohibition by the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services Act 2010 (the 2010 Act)3 of tobacco displays and of vending machines for the sale of tobacco products was outside the Scottish Parliament's competence. The Supreme Court applied a purposive approach to the interpretation of the 2010 Act and held that its purpose was to promote public health (which is a devolved matter) by reducing the attractiveness and availability of the products concerned and therefore did not relate to the regulation of the sale and supply of goods to consumers. The Supreme Court also established three principles which should be followedwhen determiningwhether the Scottish Parliament has exceeded its competence with regard to reserved matters,4 including `the sale and supply of goods to consumers' and `product safety'. Furthermore, Lord Hope found a wide interpretation of reserved matters inappropriate, taking into account that the Scottish Parliament had responsibility for Scots private law, which included the sale and supply of goods because they form part of the law of contractual obligations. With the same reasoning, the Supreme Court rejected the Appellant's second argument, namely that the 2010 Act sought to modify rules of Scottish criminal law through the creation of new offenses which relate to the law on reserved matters. It concluded that there was no connection between them as the 2010 Act did not amend or affect the existing regulations. For these reasons the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.