Tory threat on £150k bill for gender battle
Legal fees row as Humza mulls appeal
The UK Government is likely to bill Holyrood for its £150,000 legal fees after a failed court challenge on gender reforms.
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack is understood to be in favour of the unprecedented move, which would see the Scottish Government costs for the court battle reach almost £ 400,000.
Scottish ministers confirmed they have already spent £ 230,000 on the failed case over the UK Government’s block of Scotland’s Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) act.
A ruling by the Court of Session on Friday said the UK Government acted lawfully but First Minister Humza Yousaf is now considering whether to appeal the decision.
If the Scottish Government loses again, this could bring the total court costs close to £1million for both Holy rood and Westminster,
Sources close to the UK Government said asking Holyrood to pay the legal fees would be unusual but UK min i ster s feel that the Scottish Government “overstepped” when they passed the law.
A Scottish G o v e r n me n t source said: “That would be a typically petty position for the Tories to take but if they did go down that road we could ask to be reimbursed for Scotland’s share of nearly £ 300million, and rising, costs of the absurd failing UK Government proposal to disregard human rights laws and shunt asylum seekers to Rwanda.”
The row comes as former finance secretary and SNP leadership hopeful Kate Forbes urged Yousaf not to appeal and said the Bill now needed to be reformed.
She said: “I previouslypy arguedg that the Scottish Government shouldn’t contest Sectionn 35 unless there was a very high chancehance of success.
“A loss for thehe Scottish Govern-Government would obviouslyobviously absorb public funds but could embolden future UK Governmentsvernments to interfere in devolution,n, which no party of independencee wishes to see.
“Most worrying,ying, it has created a periodriod of great uncertaintyinty and fear for transans people a nndd women andd girls, deepen-ing already bitter divisions. All politicians must heal divisions not exacerbate them. That means listening.
“The ppriority should now be to give security and clarity to trans people and tto women and girls. I urge the GGovernment not to prolong the legal battle further. “I have confidenceco in our citizenszens and democraticdem processes to safeguard righrights of everybody in a reformed Bill if we listen to all.” The GRR laws aimed to mamakek it ea sier for tratransgender people to obtain a gender recrecognition certificate anand lower the age at whwhich they could apply for one from 18 to 16. BuBut some campaigners against the reforms said they could make it easier for predatory men to gain access to women’s spaces by declaring they were female.
Jen Bell, a 29-year-old transgender woman from Glasgow, said the latest development could increase hostility towards trans people.
She said: “Trans people are your colleagues, neighbours and family. They’re the ones who are going to face up against even more misinformation and hostility while just trying to get on with their lives.
“I’m sorely disappointed and concerned about the implications for our democracy.”
But campaigners who were against the reforms said the ruling was correct and it showed the Scottish Government had failed to listen to their concerns. Policy analysis firm Murray Blackburn Mackenzie said the rul ing “vindicates the concerns raised by grassroots feminist campaigners”.
In a statement the group said: “That this had to be sorted out in court reflects a failure on the part of the Scottish Government.
“But it also reflects badly on the civil service, Scottish Parliament, most of the opposition parties and many third- sector organisations who, likewise, treated the arguments and interests of women with disdain.”
The UK Government said: “There has been no decision made on seeking costs as the Scottish Government has 21 days to appeal.”
The Scottish Government was contacted for comment.