Court of Session ruling due on UK Government block of Scottish Government's gender reform bill

Lady Haldane is expected to deliver her judgement on Friday

The ruling is due on Friday. Photo: Lisa Ferguson

A ruling is due in the legal battle over the Westminster’s block of Holyrood’s controversial gender recognition legislation.

Lady Haldane who heard the case at the Court of Session is set to deliver her decision today.

MSPs from all parties had backed the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in December last year, with the legislation introduced to simplify and speed up the process for trans people to obtain legal recognition in their preferred gender.

But the UK Government said the Bill would have an adverse impact on the operation of the UK-wide Equalities Act, and Scottish Secretary Alister Jack confirmed Section 35 powers would be used to prevent the legislation from going forward.

What does the gender reform bill do?

That decision was then challenged by the Scottish Government which sought a judicial review at the Court of Session.

First Minister Humza Yousaf said previously he would “explore all options” if the Scottish Government was not successful.

“Whatever way that judgment goes, and if it goes adversely against us, then I will explore all options”.

The First Minister continued: “I think the point of the challenge, the core challenge to Section 35 is we have to understand the limits of Section 35.

“If we don’t know the limits of it, and frankly, if it is limitless effectively, then what does that really mean for self government?

“Does that mean that any Bill we pass as long as that is a ‘reasonable concern’, then it could be struck down?

“If that’s the case, then that’s surely not self-government of any sort.”

Lady Haldane has described the case as “unique, interesting and challenging” when hearing submissions in September.

Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, acting for Scottish ministers, described the order as “unlawful” and claimed the never-before-used powers were triggered because Mr Jack “would have legislated differently”.

But David Johnston KC, arguing on the UK Government’s behalf, argued the Lord Advocate’s claim that Mr Jack blocked the reforms due to a policy disagreement was a “red herring”.

He told the court: “The veto on the grounds of a policy disagreement is a red herring. Whether or not it is a disagreement is simply irrelevant.”

He said the order was not made because the Scottish legislation “diverged” from UK-wide laws, but rather the “effect the divergence would have on reserved law”.

Instead, he argued Mr Jack had “justified” grounds for using the order against the legislation, which seeks to simplify the process of legally changing gender.