ALISTER Jack has once again dismissed pleas from Holyrood for more detail on why the UK Government issued a Section 35 order to block gender reform legislation in Scotland.
The Scottish Secretary said it is up to ministers in Edinburgh how they wish to proceed with the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which he blocked from becoming law by using Section 35 of the Scotland Act.
Jack had a phone call with Scottish Government minister Shona Robison at the end of January, with minutes from the call published on Thursday.
The minutes say he acknowledged a memorandum of understanding around the use of Section 35 had not been followed.
Speaking as he visited the Halo Trust’s offices in Dumfriesshire, Jack said he disagreed with the minutes.
He said: “They (the Scottish Government) may have released the readout of the minutes of the meeting, we haven’t released ours.
“But I have asked my office to write back and explain to them the bits we disagree on.
“I heard what she (Shona Robison) said, whatever point she was making, but I just simply did not agree with it.”
Jack said “the ball’s entirely in their court” on how the Scottish Government wishes to proceed with the Bill.
He said: “They can either drop it or they can amend it, or they can if they want to take us to court.
“What I do know is that the bill has adverse impacts on UK-wide legislation, and it’s for that reason that I looked at the legal advice and used Section 35.”
READ MORE: MPs’ pay set to rise by 2.9 per cent from April
The Scottish Secretary said it is not his role to suggest what amendments could be made to the Bill, but he and law officers would consider any amendments the Scottish Government wishes to make.
Jack was also asked about deputy Conservative party chairman Lee Anderson’s support for reintroducing the death penalty.
He said: “We’re not having the death penalty in this country – no political party in decades has been suggesting the death penalty.”
Asked about Anderson’s role in the party, he added: “I’m sure he’ll be an excellent deputy chairman, because he’s got bags of enthusiasm and he’ll get around the associations, make an impact, get the message out there.
“But he is not a member of the Government, he’s deputy chairman of the party and he’s allowed to have his own opinions.”
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