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.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:47
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.”
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.
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”.
Russell Brand has been charged with rape and two counts of sexual assault between 1999 and 2005.
The Metropolitan Police say the 50-year-old comedian, actor and author has also been charged with one count of oral rape and one count of indecent assault.
The charges relate to four women.
He is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Friday 2 May.
Police have said Brand is accused of raping a woman in the Bournemouth area in 1999 and indecently assaulting a woman in the Westminster area of London in 2001.
He is also accused of orally raping and sexually assaulting a woman in Westminster in 2004.
The fourth charge alleges that a woman was sexually assaulted in Westminster between 2004 and 2005.
Police began investigating Brand, from Oxfordshire, in September 2023 after receiving a number of allegations.
The comedian has previously denied the accusations, and said all his sexual relationships were “absolutely always consensual”.
Met Police Detective Superintendent Andy Furphy, who is leading the investigation, said: “The women who have made reports continue to receive support from specially trained officers.
“The Met’s investigation remains open and detectives ask anyone who has been affected by this case, or anyone who has any information, to come forward and speak with police.”
The last blast furnaces left operating in Britain could see their fate sealed within days, after their Chinese owners took the decision to cut off the crucial supply of ingredients keeping them running.
Jingye, the owner of British Steel in Scunthorpe, has, according to union representatives, cancelled future orders for the iron ore, coal and other raw materials needed to keep the furnaces running.
The upshot is that they may have to close next month – even sooner than the earliest date suggested for its closure.
The fate of the blast furnaces – the last two domestic sources of virgin steel, made from iron ore rather than recycled – is likely to be determined in a matter of days, with the Department for Business and Trade now actively pondering nationalisation.
The upshot is that even as Britain contends with a trade war across the Atlantic, it is now working against the clock to secure the future of steelmaking at Scunthorpe.
The talks between the government and Jingye broke down last week after the Chinese company, which bought British Steel out of receivership in 2020, rejected a £500m offer of public money to replace the existing furnaces with electric arc furnaces.
More on China
Related Topics:
The sum is the same one it offered to Tata Steel, which has shut down the other remaining UK blast furnaces in Port Talbot and is planning to build electric furnaces – which have far lower carbon emissions.
Image: These steel workers could soon be out of work
However, the owners argue that the amount is too little to justify extra investment at Scunthorpe, and said last week they were now consulting on the date of shutting both the blast furnaces and the attached steelworks.
Since British Steel is the main provider of steel rails to Network Rail – as well as other construction steels available from only a few sites in the world – the closure would leave the UK more reliant on imports for critical infrastructure sites.
However, since the site belongs to its Chinese owners, a decision to nationalise the site would involve radical steps government officials are wary of taking.
They also fear leaving taxpayers exposed to a potentially loss-making business for the long run.
The dilemma has been heightened by the sharp turn in geopolitical sentiment following Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
The incipient trade war and threatened cut in American support to Europe have sparked fresh calls for countries to act urgently to secure their own supplies of critical materials, especially those used for defence and infrastructure.
Gareth Stace, head of UK Steel, the industry lobby group, said: “Talks seem to have broken down between government and British Steel.
“My advice to government is: please, Jonathan Reynolds, Business Secretary, get back round that negotiating table, thrash out a deal, and if a deal can’t be found in the next few days, then I fear for the very future of the sector, but also here for Scunthorpe steelworks.”
Prince Andrew’s efforts to make money from his Pitch@Palace project have been branded as a “crude attempt to enrich himself” at the expense of “unsuspecting tech founders”, as new documents may shed more light on what he and his team have been attempting to sell.
Today is the deadline for documents to be released relating to Prince Andrew‘s former senior adviser Dominic Hampshire and his interactions with the alleged Chinese spy Yang Tengbo.
In February, an immigration tribunal heard how the intelligence services had contacted Mr Hampshire about Mr Yang back in 2022. Mr Yang helped set up Pitch@Palace China, a branch of the duke’s scheme to help young entrepreneurs.
Image: The alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo, has links with Prince Andrew
Image: Yang Tengbo. Pic: Pitch@Palace
Judges banned Mr Yang from the UK, saying his association with a senior royal had made Prince Andrew “vulnerable” and posed a threat to national security. Mr Yang challenged that decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
Since that hearing, media organisations have applied for certain documents relating to the case and Mr Hampshire’s support for Mr Yang to be made public. SIAC agreed to release some information of public interest. It is hoped they may include more details on deals that he was trying to do on behalf of Prince Andrew.
So what do we know about potential deals for Pitch@Palace so far?
In February, Sky News confirmed that palace officials had a meeting last summer with tech funding company StartupBootcamp to discuss a potential tie-up between them and Prince Andrew relating to his Pitch@Palace project.
More on Prince Andrew
Related Topics:
The palace wasn’t involved in the fine details of a deal but wanted guarantees to make sure it wouldn’t impact the Royal Family in the future. Sky News understands from one source that the price being discussed for Pitch was around £750,000 – there are, however, reports that a deal may have stalled.
Photos we found on the Chinese Chamber of Commerce website show an event held in Asia between StartupBootcamp and Innovate Global, believed to be an offshoot of Pitch.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:08
Who is alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo?
Documents, released in relation to the investigations into Mr Tengbo, have also shown how much the duke has always seen Pitch as a way of potentially making money. One document from 21 August 2021 clearly states “the duke needed money at the time, and saw the relationships with China through Pitch as one possible source of funding”.
But Prince Andrew’s apparent intention to use Pitch to make money has led to concerns about whether he is unfairly using the contacts and information he gained when he was a working royal.
Norman Baker, former MP and author of books on royal finances, believes it is “a crude attempt to enrich himself” and goes against what the tech entrepreneurs thought they were signing up for.
He told Sky News: “The data given by these business people was given on the basis it was an official operation and not something for Prince Andrew, and so in my view, Prince Andrew had no right legally or morally to take the data which has been collected, a huge amount of data, and sell it…
“And quite clearly if you’re going to sell it off to StartupBootcamp, that is not what people had in mind. The entrepreneurs who joined Pitch@Palace did not do so to enrich Prince Andrew,” he said.
Rich Wilson was one tech entrepreneur who was approached at the start of Pitch@Palace to sign up, but he stepped away when he spotted a clause in the contract saying they’d be entitled to 2% equity in any funding he secured.
He feels Prince Andrew is continuing to use those he made a show of supporting.
He said: “It makes me feel sick. I think it’s terrible – that he is continuing to exploit unsuspecting tech founders in this way. A lot of them, I’m quite grey and old in the tooth now, I saw it coming, but clearly most didn’t. And a lot of them were quite young.
“It’ll be their first venture and you’re learning on the trot, so to speak. So to take advantage of people in such a major way – that’s an awful, sickening thing to do.”
We approached StartupBootcamp who said they had no comment to make, and the Duke of York’s office did not respond.
With reports that a deal may have stalled, it could be a big setback for the duke – especially with questions still about how he’ll continue to pay for his home on the Windsor estate now that the King no longer gives him financial support.