THE Scottish Government has failed in a bid to postpone a legal hearing with the UK Government over Westminster's decision to block controversial gender recognition reforms.
Lawyers for Scottish ministers sought a cancellation of the hearing scheduled in September in the Court of Session on Friday.
Advocate Paul Reid told judge Lady Haldane that a postponement was needed due to an appeal brought by For Women Scotland to the Inner House of Session, STV reports.
READ MORE: Tory by-election candidate branded 'hypocrite' over GRR tweet
However, Lady Haldane refused the Scottish Government's request.
Reid is acting on behalf of the Scottish Government in the judicial review being brought to the Court of Session.
The Scottish Government says Westminster acted unlawfully by blocking the legislation, passed by cross-party MSPs in Holyrood last year, which would make the process for applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) simpler.
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack used Section 35 of the Scotland Act to block the legislation from being given Royal Assent and becoming law.
Reid told Lady Haldane that he believed the outcome of the For Women Scotland appeal could have ramifications for the judicial review, as both cases had issues in comment.
However, lawyers acting on behalf of Advocate General Lord Stewart of Dirleton KC, the UK Government’s law officer in Scotland, urged Lady Haldane to refuse the request.
David Johnson KC argued that the hearings could proceed as they dealt with different legal issues, and claimed that the Scottish Government knew of the For Women Scotland appeal at the time the September hearing was arranged.
He said that the request to postpone proceedings came “too late” and it was in the public interest to have the matter heard as soon as possible.
READ MORE: Fergus Ewing calls for SNP vote on Scottish Greens Bute House Agreement
Lady Haldane agreed with the UK Government’s lawyers and refused the Scottish Government’s request.
“In any event, I do not accept that the issues in the For Women Scotland case and the issues in this motion brought by the petitioners are the same,” she said.
“In the event that For Women Scotland is successful in the Inner House, further submissions on the case can be made for whatever they see is appropriate.
“For these reasons, I refuse the motion.”
Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville (pictured above) said that the use of a Section 35 order by Westminster was “an unprecedented challenge to the Scottish Parliament’s ability to legislate on clearly devolved matters”.
She argued that it risked setting a "dangerous constitutional precedent" if Westminster could unilaterally decide to block Holyrood bills on a whim.
However, legal papers lodged by the Advocate General argue that Jack was correct to use a Section 35 order.
“There were reasonable grounds for the secretary of state to believe that the relevant provisions would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters," it states.
READ MORE: Jeremy Vine panned for Scottish independence 'fired' comments
“The order is accordingly lawful.”
The UK Government have repeatedly claimed that the legislation would impact UK-wide equality law and also that it could undermine the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
However, this has been widely disputed, and the UK Government will have to set out its reasoning as the legal challenge makes its way through the courts.
For Women's Scotland's lawyers are set to appeal a decision made by Lady Haldane regarding the definition of a woman in relation to gender representation on public boards legislation.
The appeal is set for October 2023. Haldane previously ruled against For Women Scotland.
She ruled that the meaning of "sex" is not limited to biological or birth sex, but can include those in possession of a GRC "obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex."
Essentially, the ruling meant transgender women with GRC's can legally be defined as women when it comes to legislation to ensure gender balance on public boards.
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