The Scottish Tories accused Humza Yousaf of a «cynical excuse». Photo: Robert Perry/PA
Humza Yousaf is accused of «cynical» secrecy after refusing to disclose the expected cost to the taxpayer of his gender identity reform lawsuit Nicola Sturgeon.
The First Minister acknowledged that he was granted a 'worst-case' cost to the public purse in connection with the lawsuit, along with legal advice from the Scottish government.
But he said he would not release the figures until the case was completed — a delay of more than a year if, as expected, there was an appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court case that rejected Ms Sturgeon's claim that she could hold a «consultative» independence referendum cost the taxpayer more than £250,000.
However, a gender case could be even more costly as it will first be heard in the Scottish courts and the Supreme Court will not get the same priority as an independence claim.
The Tories accused the First Minister of a «cynical excuse», claiming that he kept the cost a secret because the majority of Scots opposed the lawsuit.
Mr Yousaf's refusal to disclose the alleged cost came as a former Supreme Court judge warned that his legal case to overturn the UK government's veto on gender reform was «weak».
Lord Jonathan Sumption said it would be «very difficult» for the Scottish government to get judicial review to block the Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) bill.
Stephen Tierney, a professor of constitutional theory at the University of Edinburgh Law School, said the lawsuit could even backfire on Mr Yousaf if the court's decision contained a restrictive interpretation of delegated powers.
Ash Regan, unsuccessfully defending the leadership of the SNP against Yusuf, predicted that he would suffer a «humiliating» defeat.
Ms Regan, who resigned as minister last year in protest of the bill, tweeted: “The decision to challenge Section 35 will be a humiliating defeat. The GRR is highly unpopular with Scottish voters and a lawsuit will cost taxpayers huge sums.”
Rachel Hamilton, Scottish Tory Shadow Secretary for Equality, said: “This is a cynical cop-out from Humza Yousaf. He knows most Scots oppose his trumped-up legal confrontation with the UK government over the reckless GRR bill, so the last thing he wants to do is admit what it's costing them.
«He's quite content to squander public money in a desperate attempt to divert attention from the infighting and scandals that are tearing the SNP apart, but he's not prepared to say what that bill will be.»
The GRR Bill will allow Scots to change their legal gender by signing a statutory declaration eliminating the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
Alistair Jack, Secretary of Scotland, blocked the bill after it was passed by the MSP under an order submitted under section 35 of the Scotland Act on the grounds that it undermines the protection of women in the UK.
Mr Yusuf announced on Wednesday that he would be pushing for legal action to try to override the veto, claiming it is «now our only means of protecting the democracy of our parliament from the veto of Westminster.»
Speaking to reporters while visiting a kindergarten in Glasgow, he said he did not «know the full costs» that would be involved, but admitted that «worst-case» figures were provided.
When challenged to publish them, he replied: “No, because I do not give legal advice. This, of course, is provided as part of the [government's] legal advice as to what the cost of a lawsuit might be. But, of course, at the conclusion of this court case, we will release these figures and make them absolutely transparent.”
He dismissed claims that the lawsuit was doomed to failure, adding, «If legal advice says a case is not subject to state review, the government will not move forward with it.» Asked if he would resign if the lawsuit was unsuccessful, he replied, «No.»
Lord Sumption told BBC Radio Scotland: «I think the legal position of the Scottish government is debatable, but I think it is weak.»
He said section 35 of the Scotland Act allows the UK government to block a Holyrood bill if it «adversely affects» UK-wide laws on matters relegated to Westminster, in this case equality.
Warning that gender reforms could create «serious problems», he said: «As a result, some UK citizens, if this bill comes into force, will have a different legal gender in different parts of the country. UK, depending on where they are.»
Свежие комментарии