1. To ask the Scottish Government how much it has allocated from its budget to cover the costs of its challenge of the decision of the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Scotland to issue an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 in respect of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. (S6O-02172)

We consider that challenging the UK Government’s use of section 35 is the only option for a Government that wants to uphold and defend the democratic will and devolved powers of this Parliament. At this stage, it would be entirely speculative to comment on what the costs of the challenge would be or who would meet them. Any costs that are incurred by the Scottish Government will be published in due course.

Most of the Scottish public remain opposed to the GRR bill. The wider gender self-identification policy contributed to the downfall of Nicola Sturgeon when she housed a male double rapist in a women’s prison. It is a deeply flawed policy, and many Scots supported the UK Government’s blocking of the bill. It appears that the sole reason why the Scottish National Party Government is sticking with it is to pick a fight with the UK Government, alongside keeping the extremist Green Party happy.

Is it truly worth wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money on something that is likely to be defeated in the courts and that most Scots, including one quarter of SNP voters, oppose?

Let me remind Annie Wells that the bill was passed by an overwhelming majority of the Scottish Parliament, with support from members of all parties. The use of section 35 is an unprecedented challenge to the Scottish Parliament’s ability to legislate on devolved matters and risks setting a dangerous constitutional precedent by allowing a veto on this Parliament’s democratic decisions. It is absolutely important to have clarity on the interpretation and scope of the UK Government’s section 35 power and its impact on devolution. Those matters and the use of the powers should be legally tested in the courts.

The mention of taxpayers’ money is a bit ironic in a week when the head of the United Kingdom’s Debt Management Office has said that the mini-budget cost the UK an eye-watering £74 billion, of which Scotland’s share would be more than £6 billion. Of course, that was through a Government that was supported and enabled by Annie Wells and her colleagues.

I will not take any lessons from Annie Wells or the Tories about the use of taxpayers’ money in the face of the eye-watering amount that was wasted by the UK Government.

Despite the UK Government’s claim to have concerns about the bill, it is my understanding that it has, as yet, refused to engage with the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament to attempt to resolve those concerns. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if the Conservatives have concerns about the costs of challenging the section 35 order, they could start to address them by pressing their colleagues at Westminster to actually engage with the Scottish Government on the bill, rather than undemocratically attempting to block it?

That is correct. After the Secretary of State for Scotland made the section 35 order, I met him and proposed that our Governments work together to clarify and seek to address any specific concerns. He refused any further engagement and offered only three options: we could drop the bill; address his concerns in an amended bill, but with no indication of which areas the UK Government would want to be amended; or pursue legal action.

The legal challenge is not what we wanted to happen with the bill, after it was passed—as I said earlier—by an overwhelming majority of the Parliament, but we have been left with absolutely no choice in the matter. Of course, the UK Government could avoid those legal costs by revoking the section 35 order; we would then gladly resume dialogue with it on the issue.