THE Scottish Government looks set to pay the legal costs incurred by UK ministers in the gender reform court battle after it declined to oppose a motion at the Court of Session.
In January of last year, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack blocked the Scottish Government’s gender reforms, invoking for the first time Section 35 of the Scotland Act, claiming it interfered with UK-wide equalities legislation.
In December, the court ruled that the action was lawful, despite a Scottish Government challenge.
Jack announced earlier this month he would seek to recoup the costs incurred defending the Section 35 order, lodging a motion at the Court of Session on Friday.
READ MORE: How a tourist tax works in Europe as Scotland set to bring one in
Scottish ministers had until Monday at noon to oppose the motion, but it is understood they have declined to do so.
Responding to the news, Jack said: “The Scottish Government chose to pursue this litigation in spite of the cost to the taxpayer.
“I am pleased they have taken the sensible decision not to oppose our motion for expenses. That could have further increased the cost to the taxpayer.”
Speaking before the Scottish Affairs Committee in December, the Scottish Secretary (above) said the costs had hit £150,000, although it is not clear if this has increased.
Last week, Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said: “Devolution is fundamentally flawed if the UK Government is able to override the democratic wishes of the Scottish Parliament.
“The costs incurred in this legal challenge relate to protecting the powers of the Scottish Parliament.”
The bill sought to simplify the process of obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in Scotland by removing the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, lowering the age threshold for applicants, and reducing the time people are required to live in their acquired gender before being eligible for a GRC.
Despite the protestations, which saw unrest in the Holyrood chamber over the marathon two-day sitting in the bill’s final stage, the legislation was passed by MSPs of all parties.
In December, Lady Haldane rejected Scottish Government arguments that the order had been issued as a result of a “policy disagreement”.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel