Legal arguments presented by the UK Government on Friday assert that Scottish Secretary Alister Jack’s decision to employ previously-unused powers to prevent controversial gender reforms in Scotland was not irrational.
In April, Scotland’s First Minister Humza Yousaf announced the Scottish Government’s intention to legally challenge the UK Government’s application of Section 35 powers, which effectively halted the advancement of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill towards receiving royal assent.
The legal proceedings are scheduled to take place at the Court of Session in Edinburgh next month.
The Disputed Reforms and Legal Challenge
The proposed gender reforms aim to simplify the process for transgender individuals to self-identify and acquire gender recognition certificates.
Notably, the powers outlined in the Scotland Act, which established the devolved Scottish Parliament, had never been invoked prior to this case.
UK Government officials argued that utilizing these powers would infringe upon devolved equality laws.
Mr. Yousaf justified the legal challenge as a means to safeguard the democratic authority of the Scottish Parliament from being overridden by decisions made in Westminster.
Legal Arguments in Favor of the Secretary’s Action
In a pre-hearing argument document, Lord Stewart KC, the Advocate General for Scotland, stated that the intent of the Scotland Act is for section 35 to be wielded by the Secretary of State in areas of devolved competence, as long as specific preconditions are met.
He contended that the UK Parliament had not imposed additional, unspecified constraints on the exercise of this power, even in cases where a policy disagreement arises between the UK and Scottish governments.
Lord Stewart emphasized that section 35 is a crucial component of the broader framework for devolution, designed to provide checks and balances beyond merely determining competency.
Rejection of the Petitioners’ Argument
The legal document counters the petition presented by the Scottish ministers, asserting that the provisions listed in Schedule 1 of the Order indeed modify the application of the law to reserved matters.
It also rejects the argument put forth by the petitioners, citing it as based on an erroneous, formalistic, and overly restrictive interpretation of Section 35.
LGBT+ Organizations Granted Intervention
Furthermore, it was revealed that a senior judge has granted permission for LGBT+ organizations such as Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, and the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research (ICDR) to intervene in the legal challenge against the UK Government’s decision to block the gender reforms.
These organizations will have the opportunity to submit written evidence to the court detailing the adverse consequences of the UK Government’s intervention.
The legal battle surrounding the gender reforms continues to generate significant attention and debate, raising fundamental questions about the balance of power between the UK and devolved governments as well as the protection of individuals’ rights and identities.
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn