Latest news with #GenderRecognitionCertificate
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- Health
- The Herald Scotland
EHRC warns SNP ministers over sex definition ruling
She warned that the current 'climate of uncertainty and widespread misinformation serves nobody'. READ MORE: In April, the UK's highest court ruled unanimously that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not alter a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. The judgment clarified that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. That ruling meant every organisation in the country needed to review their equality policies. The EHRC issued interim guidance in May related to trans people's use of single-sex facilities. It also launched a consultation on changes to parts of its code of practice for services, public functions and associations, which closed yesterday. The updated code is due to be published later this year. While First Minister John Swinney initially welcomed the 'clarity' provided by the ruling, the Scottish Government has repeatedly said it is waiting for this further guidance before issuing new advice of its own to Scotland's public sector — including prisons, schools and the NHS. Dr Lesley Sawers said the law has been in effect since the ruling (Jamie Simpson/NQ)Dr Sawers said the Government should already be following the law: 'We appreciate there is an urgent need for clarity, as a climate of uncertainty and widespread misinformation serves nobody – particularly those with protected characteristics. 'But as we emphasised to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care when we met with them on June 10, duty-bearers are responsible for their own compliance with the Equality Act. 'Our Code of Practice will help them to navigate this complex area of law, but it will not provide bespoke examples of every circumstance they might encounter. 'The law, as set out in the Supreme Court's clear judgment, has been in effect since it was handed down on April 16. 'Service providers and public bodies should in any event be following the law while they wait for our statutory guidance, as it will not cover every eventuality. 'We have urged relevant bodies to seek their own legal advice where necessary, to inform decisions about what changes they need to make now to their existing policies and practices. 'Public sector bodies have particular duties to assess how their policies and practices affect people with protected characteristics, and we reminded the Cabinet Secretaries that Scottish ministers have a responsibility to ensure their adherence to the Public Sector Equality Duty.' The intervention follows a row over claims the Scottish Government 'misrepresented' private conversations with the EHRC. Last month, senior civil servants told For Women Scotland (FWS) that the Commission had advised ministers to wait for the final Code of Practice before making changes and to 'not do anything in advance of that'. The comments earned a stinging rebuke from Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the Chair of the EHRC, who told FWS the Commission had made it 'clear' to civil servants that public bodies should not wait for updated guidance before acting on the judgment. The peer said she was 'very concerned that our conversations with officials appear to have been misrepresented'. When campaigners wrote to the Scottish Government's Permanent Secretary Joe Griffin calling for a full investigation, saying it was 'extremely concerning that statements made by a senior government official to a third party about EHRC advice have been directly contested by the regulatory body itself', he replied to say his team would 'revert in due course' with a fuller response. He later said the Government accepted the Supreme Court's judgment and 'acknowledges the EHRC statement that 'duty-bearers should not wait for our statutory Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations to be in place to review their policies to ensure they are complying with the law as now settled by the Supreme Court'.' However, FWS questioned the use of the word 'review', pointing out that the EHRC had told them duty-bearers 'should not wait for our guidance but should be seeking to update their policies and practices in the light of the new understanding of the law, taking their own specialist legal advice where necessary'. The Scottish Government told The Herald the Permanent Secretary 'was quoting from correspondence between the EHRC and the Scottish Government'. When The Herald then approached the EHRC, the regulator released the statement from Dr Sawers. Trina Budge from FWS welcomed the EHRC's interventionTrina Budge from FWS said: 'We, along with the equalities regulator it seems, are fast running out of patience with the Scottish Government's incompetence and refusal to comply with the law. 'Once again, it has been made abundantly clear, including to multiple Cabinet Secretaries, that they must take action now to update policies in line with the April 16 court ruling. 'Women fought hard for our rights to be respected and this extended period of bickering and dithering by the Government is more akin to a public toddler tantrum than a sign of responsible legislators. It is nothing short of shameful. 'They need to step up and sort it out sharpish before vulnerable women and girls suffer any more harm.' Scottish Conservative Shadow Minister for Equalities, Tess White said: 'This is effectively telling SNP ministers, no more excuses. 'The Supreme Court's verdict was delivered over two months ago yet John Swinney and his colleagues are still dragging their heels on telling public bodies in Scotland to comply with the law. 'It is time for them to do the right thing and show some common-sense, rather than thinking they can continue kicking this issue into the long grass. 'The latest intervention from the EHRC would not have been needed if SNP ministers had acted immediately in light of the ruling in April and they must now finally act upon what they are ordering them to do.' READ MORE: The row comes as Sir Keir Starmer said hospitals and government departments needed to implement the Supreme Court ruling 'as soon as possible'. The Prime Minister told reporters he 'accepted the ruling; welcomed the ruling, and everything else flows from that as far as I'm concerned'. He said: 'All guidance of whatever kind needs to be consistent with the ruling and we need to get to that position as soon as possible.' Maya Forstater, the chief executive of Sex Matters, said: 'This is an important intervention from the Prime Minister, given the huge number of public bodies failing to implement the Supreme Court judgment and operating outside the law. 'Political leadership is essential if women whose rights are being stolen are not to be forced to turn to the courts, where public bodies will end up losing, at great expense to taxpayers. 'It's no coincidence that the private sector has been faster to bring their policies in line with the judgment, recognising what is at stake for the bottom line. Meanwhile most NHS, university and civil service leaders are sitting on their hands. 'The law is clear and there is no need to wait for further guidance from the EHRC or anyone else. Unlike the small businesses and services for which the regulator's guidance is intended, public sector organisations have access to specialist legal advice, as well as extra statutory obligations under the public sector equality duty.' The Scottish Government has been approached for comment.
The Herald Scotland
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Swinney government accused of twisting EHRC advice
The comments earned a stinging rebuke from Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the Chair of the EHRC, who said the Commission had made it "clear" to civil servants that public bodies should not wait for updated guidance before acting on the judgment. The peer said she was "very concerned that our conversations with officials appear to have been misrepresented". FWS told The Herald they were stunned by the claims from officials: 'At what point does this stop being ignorant incompetence and tip into wilful malpractice?' Read more: In April, the UK's highest court ruled unanimously that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not alter a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. The judgment clarified that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. The EHRC then issued interim guidance in May related to trans people's use of facilities including including changing rooms and toilets, and participation in sports. It also launched a consultation on changes to parts of its code of practice for services, public functions and associations, which is due to conclude on June 30. The watchdog is due to publish the updated code later this year. While First Minister John Swinney initially welcomed the 'clarity' provided by the ruling, the Scottish Government has repeatedly said it is waiting for this further guidance before issuing new guidance of its own to Scotland's public bodies. However, the EHRC has repeatedly said that the ruling applies now and that "those with duties under the Equality Act 2010 should be following the law and looking at what changes, if any, need to be made to their policies and practices". For Women Scotland following the court ruling (Image: PA) After the meeting with the Equalities Directorate, FWS wrote to the EHRC to question the claims made by officials. Baroness Falkner replied: "As you rightly point out, our public messaging has been that the law as set out by the Supreme Court is effective immediately. "We have been clear in our public messaging and in direct conversations with duty-bearers, including the Scottish Government, that they should not wait for our guidance but should be seeking to update their policies and practices in the light of the new understanding of the law, taking their own specialist legal advice where necessary." Earlier this week, FWS wrote to the Scottish Government's Permanent Secretary Joe Griffin calling for a full investigation, saying it was "extremely concerning that statements made by a senior government official to a third party about EHRC advice have been directly contested by the regulatory body itself". In a letter to the campaigners on Friday, seen by The Herald, Mr Griffin did not challenge FWS's account of the meeting, and said his team would "revert in due course" with a fuller response. He said the Government accepted the Supreme Court's judgment and "acknowledges the EHRC statement that duty-bearers should not wait for our statutory Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations to be in place to review their policies to ensure they are complying with the law as now settled by the Supreme Court". This, he added, "aligns with the approach the Scottish Government has taken since the judgment was issued in April". Read more: In Holyrood on Wednesday, Mr Griffin was pressed by SNP MSP Michelle Thomson to name any concrete action the Government had taken since the ruling. Mr Griffin said only that the "short life working group" had been established to prepare for implementation. He could not identify any specific changes made to guidance or policy. Asked whether the threat of legal action — including two formal pre-litigation notices issued by FWS and Sex Matters — had prompted a rethink, Mr Griffin insisted that his advice remained that it was appropriate to wait for final EHRC guidance. Susan Smith from FWS told The Herald: 'After the rambling performance of the Permanent Secretary at committee, it was clear that the Scottish Government has done nothing to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. 'To justify this, the civil service has materially misrepresented the advice given by the EHRC. There is no justification for Ministers or civil servants to ignore the law, and these highly paid public servants and politicians should not sit on their haunches while grassroots women's groups with little power or funding explain to them the basic principles of law and professional standards. Scotland deserves better. 'To say we are shocked is an understatement. At what point does this stop being ignorant incompetence and tip into wilful malpractice? 'The only recourse open to us is to return to court. But given the Scottish Government resoundingly ignored earlier Court of Session rulings and is now seemingly intent on not implementing the UK Supreme Court judgment it appears largely futile and a further waste of taxpayers' money. Has the Scottish Government really put itself beyond the law?' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "The Scottish Government has been clear that we accept the Supreme Court judgment and that public bodies have a duty to comply with the law. "Work is proceeding at pace to implement the ruling across Government. We have established a Short Life Working Group to ensure support and consistency in this. "We expect public bodies to be analysing policies and procedures and this is what is happening. For example, Police Scotland this week issued interim guidance on searching, including searching of transgender people. "The Scottish Government has also updated the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 guidance to reflect the judgment in relation to the definition of 'woman' under the Equality Act and this is now published online. "The recent changes to the Equality and Human Rights Commission's interim update demonstrate the complexity of this work and the need for extensive legal advice and consultation with stakeholders. We will continue to take this work forward at pace in a way which protects the rights of everyone in society. "The Permanent Secretary has responded to For Women Scotland."
The Herald Scotland
18-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Sex Matters warns Scottish Government over court ruling
In April, the UK's highest court ruled unanimously that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not alter a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. READ MORE The judgment clarified that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. While First Minister John Swinney welcomed the 'clarity' provided by the judgment, the Scottish Government has said it is still waiting for further instruction from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) before it issues guidance of its own to Scotland's public bodies. The watchdog is due to publish an updated statutory Code of Practice — effectively an authoritative instruction manual on applying the Equality Act — later this year. However, the EHRC has repeatedly said that as the ruling applies now, 'those with duties under the Equality Act 2010 should be following the law and looking at what changes, if any, need to be made to their policies and practices.' In the letter to the Government, Sex Matters says the ruling must be implemented 'without delay'. It also calls for the immediate withdrawal of the Government's guidance document Supporting transgender pupils in schools, describing it as 'wrong'. The charity's chief executive, Maya Forstater, told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme: 'The Supreme Court has made the law absolutely clear: men are male and women are female, and both have a right to dignity and privacy in things like toilets and changing rooms, as well as specialist services like women's refuges. 'The Scottish Government is dragging its feet — it has not changed its policies.' Ms Forstater said the ruling had yet to be applied in schools or in the Government's own facilities. She added: 'All we are asking them to do is put a simple statement on their website which says that their facilities are separated by sex, and they also provide unisex facilities so everyone is included.' READ MORE A spokesperson for the Scottish Government told The Times: 'The Scottish Government has been clear that we accept the Supreme Court judgment. 'We are reviewing policies, guidance and legislation potentially impacted by the judgment. 'This will prepare us to take all necessary steps when the regulator of the Equality Act 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, publishes its revised statutory code of practice and associated guidance for services, public functions and associations. The EHRC is currently consulting on this revised code of practice. 'We will respond to any letter received in due course.' Over the weekend, speaking at a fringe event at the Scottish Conservative conference, For Women Scotland's Susan Smith said people needed to challenge organisations failing to implement the law. 'We are possibly going to have to go back to court in order to get some of the Government policies — especially policies in prison — changed. There are still at least four male murderers in the women's prison estate in Scotland, and that is a shocking fact. 'But we have [the Supreme Court judgment] now, and this is a fantastic basis to go forward.' Speaking to journalists later, she said: 'We have spoken to the Scottish Government and asked them to withdraw some of this guidance — just even say it is under review. They do not have to reissue anything at this point, but because it is clearly unlawful, we really do need some action. 'They are telling us they have to wait for the EHRC revised guidance. We do not believe this is true.'
Irish Independent
15-06-2025
- Politics
- Irish Independent
‘It's unfair on me to have to tell my employer my biological sex is female', says Luke, 27
Luke O'Reilly Kane, who was born a woman, says lack of clarity and foresight around the Gender Recognition Act means true equality is still a long way off Luke O'Reilly Kane was born a woman, but his views now go against the predominant transgender ideology. Now 27, he was aged 18 in 2016 and among the first people to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate under the 2015 Gender Recognition Act, which marks 10 years in existence next month. Under the act, he could legally change his gender from female to male, and he carries a certificate to this effect.
The Herald Scotland
28-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Scottish Government ordered to pay For Women Scotland costs
For Women Scotland (FWS) has previously said it expects to recoup about £250,000 of £417,000 it spent on the case in costs. READ MORE Scottish Government spent £374k on gender court battle Parliament defends 'inclusive' trans toilet ban after MSPs and staff complain 'Not divisive': Tory candidate in Hamilton by-election defends Orange Order ties In a unanimous decision last month, the Supreme Court ruled that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not change a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. The justices concluded that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. The decision marked the culmination of a legal dispute that began in 2017, when the Scottish Government introduced the Gender Representation on Public Boards Bill, aimed at boosting female representation. The law was amended to include trans women — including those without a GRC — as 'women'. FWS challenged this, arguing that the definition conflicted with the Equality Act 2010, which provides sex-based protections for biological women. After an initial defeat, the group won on appeal in 2022, with judges ruling that biological sex could not be redefined. The Scottish Government then revised its guidance to state that GRC holders change their legal sex. Read the exclusive follow up to this story from Andrew Learmonth: FWS launched a second legal challenge, maintaining that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. Although the Outer House and the Inner House ruled in favour of Scottish Ministers, the Supreme Court ultimately overturned those judgments. The court order explicitly states that 'a person whose acquired gender is the female gender by virtue of a Gender Recognition Certificate issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not come within the definition of 'woman' for the purposes of sections 11 and 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010'. It adds the same clarification regarding trans men, before specifying that 'woman' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 'refers only to biological women'. The order further states that the Scottish Government is 'liable for the appellant's costs in the Supreme Court, to include the costs of one leading and one junior counsel, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed'. It is also responsible for the expenses of FWS. A previous freedom of information request by the Conservative Party revealed that the Scottish Government had already spent almost £160,000 on legal costs associated with the judicial review brought by FWS. Writing on X, former SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC said the order 'underlines clarity of the Supreme Court's judgment and provides a timely reminder for the foolhardy that generally expenses follow success'.
