BORIS Johnson dismissed concerns about his government taking Holyrood to the Supreme Court over its landmark children’s rights bill, claiming they are “fictitious”.
During PMQs, the Prime Minister took questions from the SNP’s Westminster leader Ian Blackford, who challenged him over what has been described as a “jaw-dropping” move from the Tory government.
Johnson’s administration says it has “concerns” that two bills – on children’s rights and local government – go beyond Holyrood’s powers.
READ MORE: Tories are ‘picking fight’ on child rights to prove UK ‘superiority’, expert says
Legal experts, including Durham University’s Professor Aileen McHarg, have questioned this reasoning. McHarg said the Tory government is under “no obligation” to take the legislation to the highest court in the land, and added that “this seems much more about asserting the superior status of the UK Parliament”.
Blackford brought up the bill, which would incorporate the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child into Scots law, describing it as “revolution” for children’s rights.
“Every party in the Scottish Parliament supported it, even the Scots Tories,” he told the Chamber. “It has been welcomed everywhere – except here in Westminster.
“Instead of supporting this new law the UK Government is shamefully taking the Scottish Parliament to court, in order to strike it down. Apparently the only basis of the UK Government’s legal case is that the law constrains Westminster power.
“So, Prime Minister. Can you do everyone a favour by explaining how protecting children’s rights in Scotland threatens the Tory government in London?”
The Tory leader responded dismissively, calling Blackford’s comments “complete nonsense”.
“The Government of the United Kingdom ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 13 years ago, we all support it. It is nothing to do with the rights of vulnerable children which we all protect. This is simply an attempt by the SNP to stir up constitutional chaos and create another fictitious bone of contention between themselves and the rest of the country.”
He then went on to attack the SNP’s record on education without citing any data or evidence for his claims.
“There’s nothing technical about this,” Blackford told Johnson in his response. “And the Westminster government wants to strip away the rights of children in Scotland.
READ MORE: Supreme Court move a 'jaw-dropping' assault on Scottish devolution
“This is a tale of two governments,” he said. “We have an SNP Scottish Government delivering the baby box, doubling the Scottish child payment, and providing free school meals to every primary school child. At the same time this Tory government is robbing children of their rights in Scotland – quite simply, Mr Speaker, the SNP Scottish Government has and will continue to work to ensure Scotland is the best place for a child to grow up. This legal challenge threatens that. It is wrong, and it is morally repugnant.”
The MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber challenged Johnson to drop this legal challenge – or he would see him in court.
Again, Johnson was dismissive. He repeated claims that the “best thing [the SNP] could do” on children’s rights would be improve education and other issues “that really matter to the people of Scotland”. He then accused them of being “completely irresponsible” in their calls for Scottish independence.
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