Close to six-figure sum spent by Scottish Government on children's rights bill defence

The Scottish Government spent almost £100,000 defending its flagship children’s rights bill at the Supreme Court, The Scotsman can reveal.

It comes after Supreme Court justices found the Scottish Government’s Bill seeking to incorporate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) into Scots law went beyond the powers available to the Scottish Parliament.

MSPs unanimously passed the bill in March, but the UK Government referred it to the Supreme Court due to the concerns around whether it was competent legislation for Holyrood to pass.

Read More
Owen Paterson resigns as MP amid suspension row
The Scottish Government spent almost £100,000 defending its flagship children’s rights bill at the Supreme Court, The Scotsman can reveal.The Scottish Government spent almost £100,000 defending its flagship children’s rights bill at the Supreme Court, The Scotsman can reveal.
The Scottish Government spent almost £100,000 defending its flagship children’s rights bill at the Supreme Court, The Scotsman can reveal.
Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In the ruling, Lord Reed described the Bill as having been deliberately drafted in a way that went beyond the competency of Holyrood and would undermine the Scotland Act.

Following the judgement, deputy first minister John Swinney said the government was in a “ludicrous constitutional position” and argued the ruling “illustrated the incoherence of the powers of the Scottish Parliament within the current devolved settlement”.

Opposition parties accused the government of looking for a constitutional grievance by not amending the legislation prior to it being passed after concerns were raised by the UK Government.

However, it can now be revealed almost £100,000 was spent by the Scottish Government on external legal advice and services as part of the case.

Figures obtained by The Scotsman via Freedom of Information legislation shows that, in total, £97,850 was spent on external legal costs, including advice and representation.

Defending policy in court is a regular occurrence for governments, but opposition politicians said the Bill was result of a “cynical approach” to legislation.

Donald Cameron, the Scottish Conservative’s constitution spokesperson, said the SNP “deliberately provoked a grievance” as part of a “pre-election stunt”.

He said: “The SNP Government’s cynical approach to this bill has resulted in almost £100,000 worth of public money being spent by them in order to play to their nationalist gallery.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“That has shamefully delayed a bill on children’s rights, all in the name of promoting the nationalist cause.

“SNP ministers should apologise for their actions and work constructively with the UK Government to ensure this bill can now be passed immediately.”

Sarah Boyack, Scottish Labour’s constitution spokesperson, said the SNP’s handling of the case was “shameful from start to finish”.

She said: “Taxpayers are footing a six-figure bill for a doomed court case so that the SNP could play cynical games with children’s rights during an election.

“It is a disgrace that after all the time, energy and money wasted on this court case, children have been left waiting.”

Responding, a Scottish Government spokesperson said: “We make absolutely no apology for taking every step we can to promote the rights of children in Scotland, and for seeking to incorporate the UNCRC into domestic law – something which the UK Government has failed to do almost 30 years after it ratified the UNCRC.

“The reference to the Supreme Court was made by the UK Government’s law officers and under the Scotland Act, it is the Lord Advocate who responds to challenges to the legislative competence of legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament.

“Whilst the judgment means that the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill cannot receive Royal Assent in its current form, the majority of work in relation to implementation of the UNCRC can and is continuing.”

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

If you haven't already, please consider supporting our trusted, fact-checked journalism by taking out a digital subscription.

Comments

 0 comments

Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.