Connect with us

Published

on

The Scottish and UK governments will enter into a legal battle over Holyrood’s much-debated gender reform bill.

Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville confirmed on Wednesday that the Scottish government will lodge a petition for a judicial review over Westminster’s veto of the bill.

Ms Somerville said: “The Gender Recognition Reform Bill was passed by an overwhelming majority of the Scottish Parliament, with support from members of all parties.

“The use of section 35 is an unprecedented challenge to the Scottish Parliament’s ability to legislate on clearly devolved matters and it risks setting a dangerous constitutional precedent.

“In seeking to uphold the democratic will of the parliament and defend devolution, Scottish ministers will lodge a petition for a judicial review of the Secretary of State for Scotland’s decision.”

In response, the UK government said it would “robustly defend” its decision.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said earlier in the day that the government had taken “very careful and considered advice” on the issue before acting.

The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed by MSPs just before Christmas.

It then became a constitutional dispute in January when the UK government took the unprecedented step of using section 35 of the Scotland Act to block the bill from receiving royal assent and becoming law.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Sky’s Joe Pike explained the arguments put forward by the UK government, and why some disagreed with the move

Scottish Secretary Alister Jack claimed the bill clashed with UK-wide equality laws, and differing systems of gender recognition north and south of the border would create “significant complications”.

Ms Somerville added: “The UK government gave no advance warning of their use of the power, and neither did they ask for any amendments to the bill throughout its nine-month passage through parliament.

“Our offers to work with the UK government on potential changes to the bill have been refused outright by the secretary of state, so legal challenge is our only reasonable means of resolving this situation.

“It is important to have clarity on the interpretation and scope of the section 35 power and its impact on devolution. These matters should be legally tested in the courts.”

Read more:
Why is the bill controversial?
Five key challenges Scotland’s new first minister will face

The bill aims to simplify the process for trans people to change gender in the eyes of the law.

No diagnosis or medical reports would be required, and the period in which adult applicants need to have lived in their acquired gender would be cut to three months.

Sixteen and 17-year-olds applying for a gender recognition certificate would have to live in their acquired gender for at least six months.

However, critics argue it undermines women’s rights and single-sex spaces.

The bill has been a contentious issue within the SNP.

In October last year, Ash Regan quit as community safety minister shortly before MSPs began debating the first stage. A total of seven SNP MSPs broke the whip to vote against it.

During the SNP leadership contest, First Minister Humza Yousaf was the only contender to back action if legal advice supported the move.

Ash Regan believed any court challenge would fail, while Kate Forbes pledged to amend the legislation to ensure it could not be blocked again.

Demonstrators take part in the Let Women Speak rally organised by the group Standing for Women in George Square, Glasgow, in support of the UK Governement's use of a Section 35 order to block Scotland's recent Gender Recognition Reform Bill on the grounds that it will impede the operation of the UK Equality Act. Picture date: Sunday February 5, 2023.
Image:
A Let Women Speak rally in Glasgow in February

On Tuesday, Mr Yousaf said the block was an “undemocratic veto over legislation that was passed by a majority of the Scottish Parliament”.

The Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr Jack, said in response to the announcement: “The UK government will robustly defend the decision to prevent the Scottish government’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill from becoming law.

“I made the order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 after thorough and careful consideration of all the relevant advice and the policy implications.

“I was very clear in the accompanying statement of reasons how the bill would have an adverse effect on reserved matters, including on the operation of the law as it applies to Great Britain-wide equalities protections.

“The use of the power is entirely within the devolution settlement as set out from its inception, with cross-party support.”

Analysis: Constitutional clash thunders on

This is the first big, albeit predictable, move by the new first minister.

Humza Yousaf promised to go to court during the bitter SNP leadership contest and this is confirmation of what is set to be yet another constitutional clash in the courts.

Wannabe leaders Kate Forbes and Ash Regan hammered home their message that a legal challenge would be pointless as experts were suggesting the Scottish government would lose.

The major question is whether the Holyrood administration’s lawyers have given advice to the new first minister that his government will win the case. If not, is he going ahead with the baggage of enormous legal costs knowing he will fail at the first hurdle?

Mr Yousaf is playing to the SNP gallery by ploughing on with this court challenge as his team suggest it’s a “democratic outrage” for Westminster to veto devolved legislation. They say failing to do so would set a dangerous precedent with Downing Street riding roughshod over laws it doesn’t like.

The issue of gender has also created rifts in the SNP as a party. Many will be angry one of Mr Yousaf’s first acts was to go down this route. A difficult move for a new leader walking the tightrope of uniting the party.

One thing is for sure – this court process will drag on and the controversial subject will continue to generate headlines for some time to come.

The Scottish Tories branded the move a “transparent attempt” by Mr Yousaf to divert attention from the “civil war engulfing the SNP and the huge question marks over the party’s finances“.

While the Scottish Greens said the bill was a “vital step for trans rights and equality”.

Continue Reading

UK

More criminal charges being considered over baby deaths at Lucy Letby hospitals

Published

on

By

More criminal charges being considered over baby deaths at Lucy Letby hospitals

The Crown Prosecution Service has said it is considering whether to bring further criminal charges over the deaths of babies at hospitals where Lucy Letby worked.

The CPS said it had received “a full file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary asking us to consider further allegations in relation to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital”.

“We will now carefully consider the evidence to determine whether any further criminal charges should be brought,” it added.

“As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.”

Letby, 35, was found guilty of murdering seven children and attempting to murder seven more between June 2015 and June 2016 while working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital and is currently serving 15 whole-life orders.

She is understood to have carried out two work placements at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where she trained as a student, between October and December 2012, and January and February 2015.

On Tuesday, it was confirmed that three managers at the Countess of Chester hospital had been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.

Police said the suspects, who occupied senior positions at the hospital between 2015 and 2016, have all been bailed pending further inquiries.

There is also an investigation into corporate manslaughter at the hospital, which began in October 2023.

A public inquiry has also been examining the hospital’s response to concerns raised about Letby before her arrest.

In May, it was announced the inquiry’s final report into how the former nurse was able to commit her crimes will now be published early next year.

Earlier this year, Letby’s lawyers called for the suspension of the inquiry, claiming there was “overwhelming and compelling evidence” that her convictions were unsafe.

In February, an international panel of neonatologists and paediatric specialists told reporters that poor medical care and natural causes were the reasons for the collapses and deaths.

Their evidence has been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and Letby’s legal team hopes her case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.

Continue Reading

UK

‘Catastrophic failure’ led to Heathrow power outage – with chances missed to prevent it

Published

on

By

'Catastrophic failure' led to Heathrow power outage - with chances missed to prevent it

A power outage that shut Heathrow Airport earlier this year, causing travel chaos for more than 270,000 passengers, was caused by a “catastrophic failure” of equipment in a nearby substation, according to a new report.

Experts say the fire at the North Hyde Substation, which supplies electricity to Heathrow, started following the failure of a high-voltage electrical insulator known as a bushing, before spreading.

The failure was “most likely” caused by moisture entering the equipment, according to the report.

Two chances were also missed that could have prevented the failure, experts found, the first in 2018 when a higher-than-expected level of moisture was found in oil samples.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Moment Heathrow substation ignites

Such a reading meant “an imminent fault and that the bushing should be replaced”, according to guidance by the National Grid Electricity Transmission.

However, the report by National Energy System Operator (NESO) said the appropriate responses to such a serious issue were “not actioned”, including in 2022 when basic maintenance was postponed.

“The issue therefore went unaddressed,” the report added.

The design and configuration of the airport’s internal power network meant the loss of just one of its three supply points would “result in the loss of power to operationally critical systems, leading to a suspension of operations for a significant period”, the report added.

Heathrow – which is Europe’s biggest airport – closed for around 16 hours on 21 March following the fire, before reopening at about 6pm.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Heathrow bosses were ‘warned about substation’

Around 1,300 flights were cancelled and more than 270,000 air passenger journeys were disrupted.

Tens of millions of pounds were lost, thousands of passengers were stranded, and questions were raised about the resilience of the UK’s infrastructure.

More than 71,000 domestic and commercial customers lost power as a result of the fire and the resulting power outage, the report said.

NEOS chief executive, Fintan Slye, said there “wasn’t the control within their [National Grid’s] asset management systems that identified that this [elevated moisture levels] got missed.

“They identified a fault, [but] for some reason the transformer didn’t immediately get pulled out of service and get repaired.

“There was no control within the system that looked back and said ‘oh, hang on a second, you forgot to do this thing over here’.”

Sky’s science and technology editor, Tom Clarke, pointed to the age of the substation’s equipment, saying “some of these things are getting really very old now, coming to the end of their natural lives, and this is an illustration of what can happen if they are not really well maintained”.

The report also highlights a lack of joined-up thinking, he said, as “grid operators don’t know who’s critical national infrastructure on the network, and they don’t have priority”.

Responding to the report’s findings, a Heathrow spokesperson said: “A combination of outdated regulation, inadequate safety mechanisms, and National Grid’s failure to maintain its infrastructure led to this catastrophic power outage.

“We expect National Grid to be carefully considering what steps they can take to ensure this isn’t repeated.

“Our own Review, led by former Cabinet Minister Ruth Kelly, identified key areas for improvement and work is already underway to implement all 28 recommendations.”

In May, Ms Kelly’s investigation revealed that the airport’s chief executive couldn’t be contacted as the crisis unfolded because his phone was on silent.

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, who commissioned the NESO report, called it “deeply concerning”, because “known risks were not addressed by the National Grid Electricity Transmission”.

Read more on Sky News:
Starmer ‘faced down his MPs and lost’
Partial verdict in Diddy trial
Concern for player safety at Euros

Mr Miliband said energy regulator Ofgem, which opened an investigation on Wednesday after the report was published, is investigating “possible licence breaches relating to the development and maintenance of its electricity system at North Hyde.

“There are wider lessons to be learned from this incident. My department, working across government, will urgently consider the findings and recommendations set out by NESO and publish a response to the report in due course.”

The Metropolitan Police previously confirmed on 25 March that officers had “found no evidence to suggest that the incident was suspicious in nature”.

Continue Reading

UK

The PM faced down his party on welfare and lost. I suspect things may only get worse

Published

on

By

The PM faced down his party on welfare and lost. I suspect things may only get worse

So much for an end to chaos and sticking plaster politics.

Yesterday, Sir Keir Starmer abandoned his flagship welfare reforms at the eleventh hour – hectic scenes in the House of Commons that left onlookers aghast.

Facing possible defeat on his welfare bill, the PM folded in a last-minute climbdown to save his skin.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Welfare bill passes second reading

The decision was so rushed that some government insiders didn’t even know it was coming – as the deputy PM, deployed as a negotiator, scrambled to save the bill or how much it would cost.

“Too early to answer, it’s moved at a really fast pace,” said one.

The changes were enough to whittle back the rebellion to 49 MPs as the prime minister prevailed, but this was a pyrrhic victory.

Sir Keir lost the argument with his own backbenchers over his flagship welfare reforms, as they roundly rejected his proposed cuts to disability benefits for existing claimants or future ones, without a proper review of the entire personal independence payment (PIP) system first.

PM wins key welfare vote – follow latest

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Welfare bill blows ‘black hole’ in chancellor’s accounts

That in turn has blown a hole in the public finances, as billions of planned welfare savings are shelved.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves now faces the prospect of having to find £5bn.

As for the politics, the prime minister has – to use a war analogy – spilled an awful lot of blood for little reward.

He has faced down his MPs and he has lost.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Lessons to learn’, says Kendall

They will be emboldened from this and – as some of those close to him admit – will find it even harder to govern.

After the vote, in central lobby, MPs were already saying that the government should regard this as a reset moment for relations between No 10 and the party.

The prime minister always said during the election that he would put country first and party second – and yet, less than a year into office, he finds himself pinned back by his party and blocked from making what he sees are necessary reforms.

I suspect it will only get worse. When I asked two of the rebel MPs how they expected the government to cover off the losses in welfare savings, Rachael Maskell, a leading rebel, suggested the government introduce welfare taxes.

Meanwhile, Work and Pensions Select Committee chair Debbie Abrahams told me “fiscal rules are not natural laws” – suggesting the chancellor could perhaps borrow more to fund public spending.

Read more:
How did your MP vote?
Welfare cuts branded ‘Dickensian’

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Should the govt slash the welfare budget?

These of course are both things that Ms Reeves has ruled out.

But the lesson MPs will take from this climbdown is that – if they push hard in enough and in big enough numbers – the government will give ground.

The fallout for now is that any serious cuts to welfare – something the PM says is absolutely necessary – are stalled for the time being, with the Stephen Timms review into PIP not reporting back until November 2026.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Tearful MP urges govt to reconsider

Had the government done this differently and reviewed the system before trying to impose the cuts – a process only done ahead of the Spring Statement in order to help the chancellor fix her fiscal black hole – they may have had more success.

Those close to the PM say he wants to deliver on the mandate the country gave him in last year’s election, and point out that Sir Keir Starmer is often underestimated – first as party leader and now as prime minister.

But on this occasion, he underestimated his own MPs.

His job was already difficult enough – and after this it will be even harder still.

If he can’t govern his party, he can’t deliver change he promised.

Continue Reading

Trending