THE UK Government has confirmed they will fight the Scottish Government's legal challenge of their Gender Recognition Reform law veto.
A spokesman for the Scotland Office said they would "robustly defend" Alister Jack's unprecedented use of the Section 35 Act, insisting that the legislation, passed by MSPs before Christmas, would have "an adverse effect on reserved matters."
Last month, Humza Yousaf confirmed that the Scottish Government would take legal action to save the Bill.
The new law aims to simplify the process for obtaining a gender recognition certificate by removing the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
It also reduces the length of time someone would need to live in their acquired gender from two years to less than 12 months, and lowers the minimum age for applications from 18 to 16.
The Section 35 order prevented the Bill from obtaining royal assent. It was the first time in the history of devolution that the power has been used.
Outlining his reasons for the block, Mr Jack warned it would impact the UK-wide Equality Act, and create "two parallel and very different regimes" for issuing and interpreting Gender Recognition Certificates.
The Scottish Government is now seeking to have the Section 35 order set aside in a judicial review at the Court of Session.
🕒 Today is the last day to save on a full year of digital access with our lowest EVER offer starting from £24.
Don't miss out on full access to the latest news, exclusives, opinion and premium content.
Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville told MSPs the veto was imposed without previous notification, without specific requests for changes to the Bill, without “sufficient justification”, and in breach of previous cross-border agreements.
Given the use of a Section 35 veto is unprecedented, she also said it was important to have clarity on the interpretation and scope of the power and its impact on devolution.
“Those matters and the use of the power on this occasion should be legally tested in the courts,” she said.
The judicial review will be heard initially in the Outer House of the Court of Session by a single judge, who will be asked to decide whether Mr Jack’s decision-making was flawed on the basis of illegality, procedural unfairness, or irrationality.
The losing side can then appeal to a panel of judges in the Inner House, and from there to the UK Supreme Court.
On Thursday, the UK Government confirmed that the Advocate General for Scotland, representing the Secretary of State for Scotland, has informed the Court of Session that they would contest the petition for judicial review.
Confirming that they would be challenging the judicial review, a UK Government spokesperson said: “The UK Government will robustly defend the Secretary of State’s decision to prevent the Scottish Government's Gender Recognition Reform Bill from becoming law.
“We are clear that the proposed legislation would have an adverse effect on reserved matters, including on the operation of the law as it applies to Great Britain-wide equalities protections.”
Speaking to reporters after First Minister's Questions, Humza Yousaf was asked if he thought the court case was a waste of money.
"It's not a waste of money," he said. "I engaged in this court process because I'm not prepared to accept a Westminster veto over legislation that's passed by a majority."
Greens MSP Maggie Chapman claimed the UK Government has launched "a direct attack on the work of the Scottish Parliament and the trans community in Scotland".
She added: “The Tories cannot be trusted - on equality, on fairness, or on Scotland. Every day we see another example of how they are conspiring against the will of the Scottish Parliament and the voters who put us there.
“That includes trans people, voters who put their faith in us.
"Those who have already waited too long for fairness must now endure a legal battle where other people will argue over who it is they are allowed to be.
“It's disgraceful, sickening really. But I remain supremely confident that history is on our side.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel