The equalities watchdog was making a statement on the second day of a judicial review brought by campaign group For Women Scotland, which is challenging the Scottish Government’s efforts to include trans women in legislation aimed at improving the gender balance in public councils. Speaking on behalf of the commission at the court in Edinburgh, Jonathan Mitchell KC said suggestions by For Women Scotland that the watchdog was “aligning” with one party were not correct. He said to Lady Haldane: ‘It is a pity [the EHRC] considered partisan in this, but rather inevitable for this debate which – stepping back from this case – has generated very strong passions on all sides.’ The commission has previously attracted criticism from LGBTQ+ equality campaigners for its interference with the Scottish Government’s plans to simplify the system by which transgender people can change the gender on their birth certificate, which is being debated on present at Holyrood. The EHRC was named as a stakeholder in the judicial review of the Gender Representation in Public Councils (Scotland) Act 2018. Its advice on single-sex spaces was cited by the Scottish Government in revised guidance for the act that the definition of “woman” should include transgender women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The legality of this guidance is what For Women Scotland is questioning. On Wednesday, Aidan O’Neill KC, for the campaign group, said the court’s decision would have significant implications for the Scottish Government’s ongoing gender recognition reforms as well as the protection of spaces for single people across the UK Kingdom. However, on Thursday both the Scottish Government and the EHRC argued that the case turned not on the implications for the pending legislation, but on a narrow legal issue. Ruth Crawford KC, for Scottish ministers, told the court the guidance was indeed legal. Crawford said it was clear that the British Parliament had intended the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to allow a person to legally change their gender “for all purposes” and that person would then be entitled to sex protection under of the Equality Act 2010. “For women Scotland is wrong to argue that sex is a matter of fact, not law. The construction of the words in a statute is a self-evident question of law… we give the words [the GRA 2004] their plain and ordinary meaning”. He said there was no conflict between the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act, which consolidated UK anti-discrimination law, nor was the 2004 Act made redundant or somehow repealed by the 2010 Act. Archie Bland and Nimo Omer take you to the top stories and what they mean, free every weekday morning Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online advertising and content sponsored by external parties. For more information, see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Lady Haldane will now consider her judgment. The case was concluded as the Scottish Parliament published 150 proposed amendments to its gender recognition reform proposals, which will now be considered by Holyrood’s equalities committee.
