DOUGLAS Ross says it is “absurd” for Nicola Sturgeon to claim her decision to stand down as SNP leader isn’t linked to the arrest of her husband.
The leader of the Conservatives in Scotland spoke out as it emerged a camper van had been seized by cops leading the financial probe into Peter Murrell.
Speaking during Camilla Tominey Today on GBNews, Mr Ross hit out at Ms Sturgeon’s explanation behind her reasons to leave her role as SNP leader.
He said: “For her to somehow suggest and continue to suggest it had nothing to do with this ongoing inquiry I think is frankly absurd.
“We’ve now seen the incredible sight of someone who has just been First Minister inside a house when the police came to arrest her husband. Now, obviously, that’s an ongoing live police inquiry and I can’t go much further into it but we have all seen the house being taped off.
“And now we have the incredible story of a camper van being removed from Nicola Sturgeon’s mother in law’s house. It continues to be an incredible story and one that is deeply damaging for Scotland.”
Commenting on what he’d like to see happen next he said: “I think the most important thing is we get to the bottom of this inquiry. It has now been going on for I think, 18 months, almost two years. I think people want answers.”
Mr Ross also hit out at the SNP’s record ahead of the 25th anniversary of the Hollyrood parliament. He said: “I think devolution has been a good thing in terms of bringing powers closer to the people of Scotland. It’s part of the reason I represent people in the Scottish Parliament.
“But for many remote and rural areas, Holyrood now seems as distant as Westminster ever was. So I want to see a Scottish Parliament actually deliver for people and representatives of all of Scotland and at the moment that’s not happening with the centralising SNP government.”
Mr Ross also praised the job Rishi Sunak had done since becoming PM. He said: “I think he’s doing a great job and I think we’ve seen a more progressive Conservative Party which is building more and more support because the public can see a Prime Minister who’s quietly getting things done.
He’s doing many things that commentators and other politicians felt would not be achievable. They have been delivered by the Prime Minister because he’s determined. He works with people across the political spectrum to get results. And we’ve seen that in a number of different areas. And I am very delighted that the Prime Minister is doing a great job across the board.”
Meanwhile Mr Ross also addressed criticism he has received for encouraging Scottish voters to vote Labour. “I always encourage Scottish people to vote Conservative,” he said. “But what I’m trying to say is that there are many seats across Scotland where the main challengers are SNP MPs and that people want to move on from the decade of tradition that we have under Nicola Sturgeon.
“And I think for many people, that’s an option they’re looking at because come the next Holyrood election some people will have been in charge for almost two decades. And no one can say Scotland’s in a better place as a result of that.”
Experts say government’s Strikes Bill will make Britain an international “outlier” on union laws
Unions will be forced to “undermine” their own strikes, lawyers say
Leading employment lawyers have warned that government’s new Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill will give ministers “unfettered power” to restrict the right to strike.
In a joint statement, the legal specialists say the new legislation will make Britain “an outlier” on strike laws compared to other European and Western democracies.
Those adding their names to the statement include:
Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol
Keith Ewing, Professor of Public Law, King’s College London
Ruth Dukes, Professor of Labour Law, University of Glasgow
Highlighting the new sweeping powers the Bill will give to ministers, the lawyers say:
“The legislation gives a Secretary of State a largely unfettered power to determine what a minimum level of service should be in a particular service, and consequently the circumstances in which and the extent to which workers in these sectors can lawfully exercise their freedom to strike.”
Highlighting how Britain risks becoming an international outlier on strike laws, the lawyers say:
“The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill would place an unacceptable restriction on a worker’s right to take strike action to defend their terms and conditions of employment. It adds to an existing body of highly restrictive laws on strikes, including the Trade Union Act 2016.
“It would make Great Britain an outlier among comparable countries. If ministers are keen to learn from overseas, a more promising place to start would be the creation of a culture of social dialogue and balanced cooperation through the introduction of sector-wide collective bargaining, together with the clear legal recognition of a positive right to strike.”
Highlighting the strain the Bill will put on industrial relations, the lawyers say:
“Trade unions will be required by an employer acting with the authority of the state to take steps actively to undermine its own strike, for which its members will have voted in a ballot with high thresholds of support. Such an obligation is unprecedented in British law, and it places trade unions in an intolerable conflict with their own members.
“The legislation also removes significant protections for individual workers exposing them to the risk of dismissal and victimisation. It will do nothing to resolve the current spate of industrial action, which will be settled by negotiation and agreement, rather than by the introduction of even tighter restrictions on trade unions.”
The TUC has accused the government of ducking scrutiny over the Bill.
If passed, the Strikes Bill will mean that when workers democratically and lawfully vote to strike they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply.
The Bill gives ministers power to impose new minimum service levels through regulation.
But consultations on how these regulations will work in specific services have not been completed, and parliamentarians have been given few details on how minimum service levels are intended to operate.
The TUC says the new legislation will “do nothing” to solve the current disputes across the public sector, and “only make matters worse”.
Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law at the University of Bristol said: “This Bill would risk leaving Britain an international outlier in its restrictive laws on trade unions.
“When combined with existing legislation, these proposals constitute a further departure from established norms and international treaty obligations.
“Rather than bringing Britain into line with other European countries, it deviates significantly from the legal traditions of our neighbours where the right to strike is often given explicit constitutional protection.”
Ruth Dukes, Professor of Labour Law at the University of Glasgow said: “These minimum service requirements will do nothing to help workers and employers reach agreement.
“But they might well prolong and inflame disputes.”
Commenting on the lawyers’ letter, TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “This is a damning assessment of the government’s Strikes Bill. Make no mistake – these new laws are a naked power grab that will allow ministers to severely restrict the right to strike.
“This spiteful legislation would mean that when workers democratically vote to strike, they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply.
“Compulsory work notices during strikes will place a huge strain on employer and union relations and will do nothing to help resolve disputes.
“If this nasty legislation gets on to the statute book, the TUC will fight it all the way – including through the courts.
“The Conservatives cannot legislate away worker dissatisfaction.”
The full statement reads:
We the undersigned are specialists in employment law.
Between us we have decades of experience as academics and practitioners in analysing the existing statutory regime for industrial action and the wider industrial relations landscape in Great Britain and internationally.
In our view the Strikes Bill (Minimum Service Levels) Act would place an unacceptable restriction on a worker’s right to take strike action to defend their terms and conditions of employment. It adds to an existing body of highly restrictive laws on strikes, including the Trade Union Act 2016. The cumulative effects of this legislation would place the UK well outside the mainstream of industrial relations in comparable countries.
The right to strike is guaranteed in international law by a succession of important treaties. These include the Council of Europe’s Social Charter of 1961; and the UN’s International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights of 1966. It has also been recognised as a human right by the International Labour Organisation, and by the European Court of Human Rights. Our obligation to respect ILO conventions and the Social Charter was reinforced by the 2020 Trade and Cooperation Treaty with the European Union.
In Great Britain the right to strike is already heavily limited. The statutory regime places significant requirements on trade unions contemplating industrial action including the need to conduct a postal ballot under highly complex rules, the need to clear high thresholds of support (even higher in ‘important public services’), and to give 14 days’ notice of action.
The Strikes Bill as drafted would remove none of these requirements while placing a hugely onerous new set of requirements on unions and union members.
The legislation gives a Secretary of State a largely unfettered power to determine what a minimum level of service should be in a particular service, and consequently the circumstances in which and the extent to which workers in these sectors can lawfully exercise their freedom to strike. If a strike takes place in these services, an employer will have the power to issue a work notice effectively to requisition workers during the strike.
Trade unions will then be under a duty to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that workers comply with the work notice. Trade unions will thus be required by an employer acting with the authority of the state to take steps actively to undermine its own strike, for which its members will have voted in a ballot with high thresholds of support. Such an obligation is unprecedented in British law, and it places trade unions in an intolerable conflict with their own members.
The legislation also removes significant protections for individual workers exposing them to the risk of dismissal and victimisation. It will do nothing to resolve the current spate of industrial action, which will be settled by negotiation and agreement, rather than by the introduction of even tighter restrictions on trade unions.
The proposed minimum service legislation constitutes a further departure from established norms and treaty obligations. It would make Great Britain an outlier among comparable countries. If ministers are keen to learn from overseas, a more promising place to start would be the creation of a culture of social dialogue and balanced cooperation through the introduction of sector-wide collective bargaining, together with the clear legal recognition of a positive right to strike.
Professor Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol
Professor Nicola Countouris, Director of the Research Department, European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) and Professor in Labour Law and European Law, University College London
Professor Ruth Dukes, Professor of Labour Law, University of Glasgow
Professor Keith Ewing, Professor of Public Law, King’s College London
Professor Lydia Hayes, Professor of Labour Rights, University of Liverpool
Dr Ioannis Katsaroumpas, Lecturer in Employment Law, University of Sussex
Professor Aristea Koukiadaki, Professor of Labour Law and Industrial Relations, Head of The University of Manchester Law School
Professor Virginia Mantouvalou, Professor of Human Rights and Labour Law, University College London
Dr Ewan McGaughey, Reader in Law, King’s College London
Professor Tonia Novitz, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol
Scottish Conservative and Unionist MSP, Miles Briggs, has called on new First Minister Humza Yousaf to commit to additional funding to support leisure centres and swimming pools in Scotland.
The call comes following the UK Government’s decision to release £63 million of investment to support leisure centres and swimming pools in England.
The Scottish Government is set to receive an additional £320 million from the UK Treasury in Barnett consequentials as a result of the latest Budget, with Scottish Swimming among groups calling on the Scottish Government to make extra funding available for the sector.
In Scotland, local councils and leisure trusts operate over 200 swimming pools which are responsible for hosting swimming g lessons for over 106,000 per week.
Public pools in Scotland receive massive support from the public, with a poll in February by JL partners revealing that 94% of Scots backed pools as being good for safety and 93% of Scots agreeing that all children should learn to swim.
Earlier this month, East Lothian sports operators enjoyleisure were handed £40,000 to help cover losses after one of its swimming pools was closed until further notice.
Swimming pools across the region are at risk of closure due to soaring energy costs, with West Lothian Council announcing that every swimming pool is at threat of closure due to the associated cost of running.
Lothian MSP, Miles Briggs said: “The news that the Scottish Government will receive an additional £320m from the UK Treasury is a welcome one.
“However, we now need to see that money spent on real, tangible change for the better of Scotland. Investment in swimming pool across Scotland would be a tremendous use of that money and would benefit both old and young.
“Swimming pools and leisure centres do not just offer recreational opportunities for people; they are a vital way of keeping the nation healthy, both mentally and physically. It is therefore essential that we do whatever we can to prevent their closure.
“That is why I am calling on the new First Minister to commit to new funding for our swimming pools.”
Westminster’s Committee of Privileges has published written evidence submitted by Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP, ahead of hearing his oral evidence today (Wednesday).
The Committee initially received the written evidence from Mr Johnson on Monday afternoon at 2.32pm in unredacted form.
The evidence submitted had a number of errors and typos, and, a final corrected version was not submitted to the Privileges Committee until 8.02 am yesterday morning.
Redactions have been made in the published version to protect the identity of some witnesses, in consultation with Mr Johnson, particularly junior-ranking civil servants.
Mr Johnson’s written submission contains no new documentary evidence.
The Committee has set out its own views of its processes in reports published in July and September 2022. The Committee will consider carefully the further arguments made by Mr Johnson and respond to them in its final report.
Throughout this inquiry the Committee has received and followed the advice of its legal adviser, former Senior President of Tribunals and Lord Justice of Appeal Rt Hon Sir Ernest Ryder, as well as the impartial Clerks of the House. The Committee remains confident in the fairness of its processes and in its compliance at all times with the rules and practice of the House of Commons.
From the start of its inquiry the Committee has offered Mr Johnson the opportunity to provide written evidence. In its report published on 2 March 2023, the Committee set out a summary of principal issues to be raised with Mr Johnson in oral evidence, at his request, and at the same time disclosed to him all the evidence received by the Committee and the identities of all witnesses.
Mr Johnson has now provided written evidence, which can be read here.
Ahead of the oral evidence session on Wednesday, the Committee will be publishing, again by agreement with Mr Johnson, a “core bundle” of documents to which the Committee and Mr Johnson may refer in the course of the questioning.
These documents will be published on the Committee website at 9.00 am today.
The Committee of Privileges will hear oral evidence in public from Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP from 2pm today (Wednesday 22 March).
The session can be watched on Parliament TV here. There is no approximate end time for the session.
UK Government plans to impose minimum service levels on public services during strike action are likely to be incompatible with human rights law in their current form, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has found.
In a report published following legislative scrutiny of the Strikes (Minimum Service Level) Bill, the Committee finds that reforms that would make it easier to sack striking workers and leave unions at risk of million-pound fines do not appear to be justified and need to be reconsidered. The Committee finds that it would be possible to introduce minimum service levels in some sectors in a way that is more likely to be compliant with human rights law.
While the European Convention on Human Rights does not include a ‘right to strike’, Article 11 which guarantees freedom of association has been interpreted to cover the taking of strike action. This requires that any restrictions on strike action must be “in accordance with the law”, which requires its consequences to be foreseeable to those affected. Changes to the law must also meet a “pressing social need” and be proportionate to the aim being pursued.
The Joint Committee finds that the Government’s Bill risks failing to meet these benchmarks in its current form. Ahead of the Committee Stage in the House of Lords on 9 March, it has called on the Government to reconsider the legislation and ensure it meets the UK’s human rights obligations. The draft report includes five proposed amendments to the Bill intended to rectify key concerns.
The Government brought forward the Strikes Bill in response to growing industrial unrest and strikes in a number of sectors, including transport, health and education. It has argued that legislation is needed to provide greater protection to the lives and livelihoods of those that may be disrupted by industrial action in key public services.
The Bill would allow ministers to set minimum service levels on public and private services subject to strike action. The employer would then be given the power to issue a ’work notice’ to a trade union, identifying who will be required to work and the work needed to meet the minimum service level.
Individual employees who failed to comply with a work notice would lose legal protections against dismissal. Trade unions who failed to take steps to ensure notices were complied with could be required to pay damages of up to £1 million.
The Joint Committee warns that the Government has not made a compelling case that such measures are necessary and finds that the Bill as drafted contains inadequate protection against arbitrary use and is unclear.
Under the European Convention on Human Rights, restrictions on strikes must meet a ‘pressing social need’. However, the Government has not proven that existing strike laws and voluntary minimum service levels are insufficient across all the sectors identified in the Bill.
Claims that strike action in the sectors named in the Bill has caused significant and disproportionate damage to the public and wider economy have not been backed up with sufficient evidence, with the Government providing supporting data for the costs of previous transport strikes only.
Measures that interfere with the right to free association must be proportionate. This is more likely to be achieved if minimum service levels are established though negotiation and disputes resolved through independent arbitration. The Government has previously accepted that such an approach would work, in the Transport Strikes Bill introduced in October. The Bill, which would abandon this in favour of the Secretary of State imposing minimum service levels by regulations, risks failing to meet the requirement of proportionality.
Penalties for employees and unions who don’t meet the Bill’s requirements are high and potentially disproportionate, the Joint Committee finds. It calls on the Government to reconsider whether less severe measures would be more appropriate, particularly where a strike does not involve essential services. Existing penalties, such as loss of pay or suspension would be more appropriate in such cases.
The Bill has insufficient clarity in several key areas, the Joint Committee finds. Trade unions would be required to take ‘reasonable steps’ to ensure their members comply with a work notice, however the Bill does not provide sufficient detail to ensure they will know when this duty has or has not been met.
The definitions of the services in respect of which minimum service levels could be imposed are currently too vague, meaning that ‘education services’ could include private tutors and ‘transport services’ private taxi drivers.
Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Joanna Cherry KC MP said: “The Strikes Bill will be debated in the House of Lords this Thursday and needs amending to resolve some of the deep flaws it has.
“If this proposed legislation becomes law in its current form, ministers would have the power to set minimum service levels that would leave striking workers at risk of the sack if they are not met, and unions liable to million-pound fines. Yet, the Government has not proven that such draconian measures are needed or that the current framework is inadequate.
“Heavy-handed sanctions are compounded by vague rules that would leave striking workers and unions in confusion as to whether they had been met or not. The sectors included in the Bill are also ill-defined, risking over-reach into areas only tangentially linked to the maintenance of vital public services. This means the Bill, in our view, is likely to be incompatible with human rights law which provides a right to association and with it, protection for strike action.
“The Government needs to think again and come back with legislation that better respects the protections guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Work is a central aspect of people’s live as it often provides their principal source of income and can provide a sense of purpose. Employment can also contribute to an individual’s feelings of self-respect and dignity. However, the world of work has also been recognised as involving an imbalance of power between employer and workers This imbalance can lead to exploitation, discrimination and other harmful practices.
States have an obligation to protect workers from breaches of their human rights. This can include ensuring employers don’t interfere with their worker’s freedom of association, for example by preventing them from joining a trade union. States also have an obligation to ensure workers aren’t subject to surveillance and workplace monitoring that amounts to a breach of their right to private and family life.
There are a large number of laws and regulations that protect rights at work. This inquiry will specifically look at how the universal protections guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights apply to the world of work and the rights of workers.
The Committee is undertaking a separate piece of work providing legislative scrutiny of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill.
Committee Chair Joanna Cherry KC MP said: “Employment often has an inherent power imbalance that can leave workers vulnerable to exploitation or discrimination. There is an obligation on the Government to ensure that there is a comprehensive framework in place that ensure the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights are protected at work.
“The Joint Committee on Human Rights has launched this inquiry to understand how rights are currently protected at work and pinpoint where greater safeguards may be needed.”
Terms of reference
The Committee invites written evidence on the following questions. The deadline for submitting written evidence is 24 March 2023. Please note, your submission does not need to address every question in the terms of reference.
Does the current law effectively protect the rights of trade unions and workers to take industrial action under Article 11 ECHR? Does the law effectively protect the right to strike for the purposes of other international human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Labour Organisation Conventions?
The right to privacy and surveillance at work
What forms of surveillance, if any, that are used to monitor workers raise concerns under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to private and family life)? Are there any associated concerns under Article 14 (freedom from discrimination)?
What is the legal framework in the UK that governs surveillance in the workplace?
Where surveillance is used to monitor workers, does the current legal framework adequately protect their Article 8 right to private and family life? If not, what changes need to be made to ensure it does?
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression in the workplace
Does domestic law strike the right balance between workers’ Article 9 right to freedom of religion or belief and the rights of employers? If not, what changes are needed?
Does domestic law strike the right balance between workers’ Article 10 right to freedom of expression and the rights of employers? If not, what changes are needed?
Does domestic law provide adequate protection for the rights of workers to be free from harassment at work by third parties on account of their religion or beliefs?
Labour market exploitation
What is the current legal and policy framework for tackling labour exploitation in the UK? Is that framework effective to protect workers’ rights under Article 4 ECHR, which prohibits slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour?
Are there any improvements that could be made to better tackle exploitative labour practices which are contrary to Article 4 in the UK?
Do workers from particular groups or in precarious employment disproportionately experience labour market exploitation? Does this raise concerns under Article 14 ECHR (freedom from discrimination)?
Retained EU Law and workers’ rights
To what extent is the UK’s compliance with its human rights obligations, in relation to the protection of workers, currently dependent on retained EU law?
International human rights treaties
Does the UK effectively comply with its international obligations to protect workers’ rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, and International Labour Organisation Conventions? If not, what improvements should be made?
Closing date for written submissions is 24 March 2023.
A Westminster committee has found that BBC Chair Richard Sharp made ‘significant errors of judgement’ when failing to declare his role in the facilitation of a loan to the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson and should reflect on the potential damage caused to trust in the corporation.
In a report published today, the Committee says that his omissions denied MPs the opportunity to fulfil their scrutiny role, as they were left without the full facts to make a judgement on his suitability when he appeared before the Committee for a pre-appointment hearing in January 2021.
The report calls on Mr Sharp to now consider the impact his actions will have on the trust in him, the BBC and the public appointment process and for the Government and all those involved to ensure future processes are not clouded by partial disclosure.
The Committee also notes that the issue of why the Cabinet Secretary believed Mr Sharp had been giving financial advice to Mr Johnson, which Mr Sharp denies, remains unresolved. The Cabinet Office should clear up the confusion immediately.
Digital Culture Media and Sports Committee Acting Chair, Damian Green MP, said: “The public appointments process can only work effectively if everyone is open and transparent, yet Richard Sharp chose not to tell either the appointment panel or our Committee about his involvement in the facilitation of a loan to Boris Johnson.
Such a significant error of judgment meant we were not in the full possession of the facts when we were required to rule on his suitability for the role of BBC Chair.”
Neither the BBC nor Richard Sharp have so far responded to the report.
The Government response to the Women and Equalities Committee report on menopause and the workplace is a “missed opportunity to protect vast numbers of talented and experienced women from leaving the workforce.”
Published today, the UK Government’s response rejects five of the Committee’s recommendations outright, including the recommendation to consult on making menopause a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and pilot a specific menopause leave policy.
In a letter to Health Minister Maria Caulfield, the Chair of the Committee Caroline Nokes expressed concern that the Government has “ignored the significant evidence base” for equality law reform and called on the Government to review its position.
The Committee also highlights the low cost but high impact opportunities for model workplace menopause policies and menopause leave, which the Government has dismissed.
In the letter, the Committee highlighted it was “extremely disappointing that the Menopause Taskforce has not met since prior to the summer recess, and that the industry roundtable on HRT supplies has been delayed a number of times.”
The Committee’s report, published in July 2022, argued that the overlooked impact of menopause is causing the UK economy to ‘haemorrhage talent’.
It also argued that the current law does not sufficiently protect women experiencing menopause and does not offer proper redress to those who suffer menopause related discrimination, with evidence that many women have to demonstrate their menopausal symptoms amount to a disability to get redress.
Though the Government said it has accepted, partly accepted or accepted in principle six of the recommendations, it comes under criticism from the Committee for not actually committing to any new work in response to the report.
Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP, said: “This belated response to our report is a missed opportunity to protect vast numbers of talented and experienced women from leaving the workforce, and leaves me unconvinced that menopause is a Government priority.
“For too long women have faced stigma, shame and dismissive attitudes when it comes to menopause. The evidence to our inquiry was crystal clear that urgent action was needed across healthcare and work settings to properly address women’s needs, yet Government progress has been glacial and its response complacent.
“Its refusal to even consult on reforming equalities law doesn’t make sense and we urge it to look again.”
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack has made an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, preventing the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
Oral statement by Scottish Secretary Alister Jack to the House of Commons yesterday in relation to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill:
Mr Speaker, today I will make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 preventing the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
This Order will mean the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament will not submit the Bill for Royal Assent.
This Government believes however that transgender people deserve our respect, our support and our understanding.
My decision is centred on the legislation’s consequences for the operation of reserved matters, including equality legislation across Scotland, England and Wales.
The Scottish Government’s Bill would introduce a new process for applying for legal gender recognition in Scotland.
The changes include reducing the minimum age a person can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate from eighteen to sixteen, and removing the need for a medical diagnosis and evidence of having lived for two years in their acquired gender.
The Bill would amend the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which legislated for a single gender recognition system across the UK and which received a Legislative Consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament.
The approach taken in the Scottish Government’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill was the subject of intense debate in the Scottish Parliament.
A number of significant amendments were tabled right up until the end of the Bill’s passage.
And the Minister for Women and Equalities corresponded with and met with the Cabinet Secretary Shona Robison to discuss the UK Government’s concerns, before the Bill had reached its final stage.
Mr Speaker, I have not taken this decision lightly.
The Government has looked closely at the potential impact of the Bill and I have considered all relevant policy and operational implications, together with the Minister for Women and Equalities.
And it is our assessment that the Bill would have a serious adverse impact, among other things, on the operation of the Equality Act 2010.
Those adverse effects include impacts on the operation of single-sex clubs, associations and schools, and protections such as equal pay.
The Government shares the concerns of many members of the public and civic society groups regarding the potential impact of the Bill on women and girls.
The Bill also risks creating significant complications from having two different gender recognition regimes in the UK and allowing more fraudulent or bad faith applications.
The Government is today publishing a full Statement of Reasons, alongside the order, which will set in full the adverse effects the Government is concerned about (see below – Ed.).
Mr Speaker, I would like to address the claims put forward by those who would seek to politicise this decision and claim that this is some kind of “constitutional outrage” and you can hear them Mr Speaker, you can hear them.
The section 35 power was included in the Scotland Act, which established the Scottish Parliament.
This the first time the power has been exercised and I acknowledge that this is a significant decision.
The powers in Section 35 of the Scotland Act are not new, and this Government has not created them. They have existed as long as devolution itself.
And we should be clear that the power was included in the Act by the architects of devolution for a reason. Donald Dewar himself noted that the power struck an “important balance”.
The section 35 power provides a sensible measure to ensure that devolved legislation does not have adverse impacts on reserved matters, including on equalities legislation such as the Equality Act 2010.
This is not about preventing the Scottish Parliament from legislating on devolved matters but about ensuring that we do not have legal frameworks in one part of the UK which have adverse effects on reserved matters.
And we should be clear that this is absolutely not about the UK Government being able to veto Scottish Parliament legislation whenever it chooses, as some have implied.
The power can only be exercised on specific grounds – and the fact that this is the first time it has been necessary to exercise the power in almost twenty-five years of devolution emphasises that it is not a power to be used lightly.
In the instance of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, I have concluded that the bill would have serious, adverse effects on the operation of the Equality Act 2010.
As I set out in my correspondence with the First Minister yesterday, I would prefer not to be in this situation.
The UK Government does all we can to respect the devolution settlement and to resolve disputes.
It is open to the Scottish Government to bring back an amended Bill for reconsideration in the Scottish Parliament.
So to conclude, Mr Speaker, I have set out to the Scottish Government that should they choose to do so, I hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward that both respects devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation.
Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told the BBC that the Scottish government will seek a judicial review of the Westminster government’s decision at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
There’s every possibility that this constitutional wrangle will end up in the UK’s Supreme Court.
‘This is a full-frontal attack on our democratically elected Scottish Parliament‘ – First Minister Nicola Sturgeon
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack has made an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, preventing the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack said last night: “I have decided to make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, preventing the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
“After thorough and careful consideration of all the relevant advice and the policy implications, I am concerned that this legislation would have an adverse impact on the operation of Great Britain-wide equalities legislation.
“Transgender people who are going through the process to change their legal sex deserve our respect, support and understanding. My decision today is about the legislation’s consequences for the operation of GB-wide equalities protections and other reserved matters.
“I have not taken this decision lightly. The Bill would have a significant impact on, amongst other things, GB-wide equalities matters in Scotland, England and Wales. I have concluded, therefore, that this is the necessary and correct course of action.
“If the Scottish Government chooses to bring an amended Bill back for reconsideration in the Scottish Parliament, I hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward that both respects devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation.
“I have written today to the First Minister and the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer informing them of my decision.”
Reacting to the announcement last night, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted: “This is a full-frontal attack on our democratically elected Scottish Parliament and it’s ability to make it’s own decisions on devolved matters.
“@scotgov will defend the legislation & stand up for Scotland’s Parliament. If this Westminster veto succeeds, it will be first of many”
The Scottish Secretary will address Westminster later today to further explain the reasons for this unprecedented decision. Doubtless Holyrood, too, will have much to say.
