Yousaf: Court ruling gender reform block lawful is ‘dark day’ for devolution

Lady Haldane rejected a review into the UK Government’s block on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill.

First Minister Humza Yousaf said the ruling showed devolution was ‘fundamentally flawed’ (Robert Perry/PA) (PA Archive)

Scotland’s First Minister has said it is a “dark day for devolution” after a court ruled the UK Government had acted lawfully in blocking Holyrood’s gender reforms.

Humza Yousaf claimed devolution was “fundamentally flawed” after the Court of Session judgment rejected claims for the Section 35 order of the Scotland Act to be dropped.

The Scottish Government mounted the legal challenge in January after Westminster issued the never-before-used power to prevent the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from receiving royal assent, despite passing with cross-party support in Holyrood.

The legislation simplifies the process for transgender people to obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC) and officially change their legally-recognised sex.

In her ruling on Friday, Lady Haldane, who presided over two days of evidence at Scotland’s highest civil court in September, said the challenge “fails”.

She wrote: “I will accordingly sustain the pleas in law for the respondent (the UK Government), repel the pleas in law for the petitioners (the Scottish Government) and dismiss the petition.”

The legislation passed in December 2022 by 86 votes to 39 after MSPs considered 153 amendments to the Bill in a marathon parliamentary session.

Campaigners against the reforms warned the legislation could risk the safety of women and girls while supporters argued it would make the remove barriers including the need for a gender dysphoria diagnosis.

Writing on X, formerly Twitter, Mr Yousaf said: “Today’s ruling confirms beyond doubt that devolution is fundamentally flawed. The court has confirmed that legislation passed by a majority in Holyrood can be struck down by Westminster.”

He added: “This is a dark day for devolution.”

Following this latest court defeat from the Scottish Government, their ministers need to stop wasting taxpayers’ money pursuing needless legal action and focus on the real issues which matter to people in Scotland

Scottish Secretary Alister Jack

However, he said his Government will “respect” and “consider” the judgment.

Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain, representing Scottish ministers, argued during the hearings that Scottish Secretary Alister Jack used the landmark power because of a “policy disagreement”.

She also argued the order was “unlawful” and was “inconsistent with the constitutional principles” of the UK, effectively preventing Holyrood from passing laws the UK Government did not agree with.

In her ruling, Lady Haldane said: “There is no reference, direct or indirect, to that being a concern motivating the making of the order. Whilst therefore I have no hesitation in accepting that the petitioners hold a sincere view as to what they suspect to be the motivation … I cannot on the material before me conclude that.”

The key argument put forward by David Johnston KC, on behalf of UK ministers, was that the policy could have an “adverse impact” on reserved equality legislation.

He said Mr Jack had “justified” grounds for using the order, stating it superseded or amended the 2004 Gender Recognition Act by altering the meaning of a GRC by removing the gender dysphoria diagnosis and lowering the application age from 18 to 16.

Lady Haldane agreed, stating: “The words ‘full gender recognition certificate’ will no longer mean the same thing as they do currently.”

She added that “it cannot be asserted the meaning overall” has not changed.

She also said Section 35 “does not” impact on the separation of powers or “other fundamental constitutional principles”.

Mr Jack welcomed the judgment, reiterating the “adverse effects” he said it would have had on UK-wide laws.

He said: “Following this latest court defeat from the Scottish Government, their ministers need to stop wasting taxpayers’ money pursuing needless legal action and focus on the real issues which matter to people in Scotland – such as growing the economy and cutting waiting lists.”

Colin Macfarlane, director of nations at LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall, who supplied written arguments to the case, expressed “disappointment”, adding: “This unfortunately means more uncertainty for trans people in Scotland who will be waiting once again to see whether they will be able to have their gender legally recognised through a process that is in line with leading nations like Ireland, Canada and New Zealand.”

Labour’s shadow Scottish secretary Ian Murray MP said: “It is disappointing this legalisation ended in the courts but this ruling should be respected.

“This is another demonstration of why both governments have to work together rather than spending taxpayers’ money fighting in courts and pitting communities against each other.”