Summary
Here is round-up of the day’s top stories from Westminster:
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has confirmed that the Scottish government will go to court to challenge the UK government’s decision to block its gender recognition reform bill. In an interview with the BBC, she said: “In doing so we will be vigorously defending something else, and that is the institution of the Scottish parliament and the ability of MSPs, democratically elected, to legislate in areas of our competence. In short, we’ll be defending Scottish democracy.”
The Scottish government has estimated that between 250 and 300 people will apply for a gender recognition certificate every year if its bill becomes law, the UK document on the section 35 order decision says. That is currently a tenfold increase because only around 30 people currently apply, the document says.
Ian Murray, the shadow Scottish secretary, said the reasons given by the government to justify the section 35 order were “pretty weak and pretty flimsy” at first glance. But he refused to condemn the use of the section 35 order outright, and instead he criticised both the UK and Scottish governments, depicting them both as unreasonable.
Social media bosses who ignore or deliberately flout rules aimed at protecting children could face jail under plans drawn up as Rishi Sunak bowed to pressure from rebel Tories. The prime minister was facing a major backbench rebellion as 50 MPs put their names to an amendment to the online safety bill that would make tech chiefs criminally liable if they do not block minors from seeing damaging content on their platforms. The compromise plan put forward by the culture secretary, Michelle Donelan, would hold bosses accountable “in a way which is effective and targeted towards child safety”.
The University and College Union has announced that its latest strike action will begin on 1 February, alongside teachers, railway workers and civil servants, in action likely to affect 150 universities across the UK. Up to 70,000 UCU members could go on strike as part of their long-running dispute with higher education employers over pay, pensions and working conditions. The 1 February strike is the first of 18 days of action that the union has threatened to take over the next two months.
The independent inquiry looking at the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer will also consider the crimes of David Carrick, the home secretary announced. Suella Braverman told the Commons Dame Elish Angiolini will include the 48-year-old’s offending in her inquiry, which was set up in November 2021.
Brexit has led to a shortfall of 330,000 people in the UK labour force, mostly in the low-skilled economy, a report by leading researchers has found. The UK’s departure from the EU in 2020 led to an increase in immigration from non-EU countries but not enough to compensate for the loss of workers from neighbouring countries, according to the joint findings of the thinktanks Centre for European Reform (CER) and UK in a Changing Europe.
Michelle Donelan, the culture secretary, has announced that the government will go ahead with a ban on conversion practices. Curiously, she has made the announcement in a Commons written statement, which is mostly about the online safety bill, and which provides details of the concession to potential Tory rebels revealed last night.
That’s it from me, Tom Ambrose, and indeed the UK politics live blog for today. The blog will be back tomorrow morning but, for now, it’s goodnight from us.
Updated
People should have to opt in, not out, to see harmful content online, the SNP said.
Urging MPs to back an SNP amendment to the bill aimed at making the change, the party’s Cabinet Office spokesperson, Kirsty Blackman, said the safest option “should be the default option”.
She added:
That is the point of view we should start from.
We should start from the point of view that if anyone wants to see eating disorder content, if they want to see racist content that doesn’t meet the bar of illegality, if they want to see incredibly harmful content that does not meet that bar, they should have to opt in to receive that content.
They shouldn’t see that by default, they should have to make that actual choice that they want to see that content.
Updated
Measures to criminalise social media bosses who flout rules aimed at protecting children online may go too far and may not be effective, a Conservative former minister said.
Sir Jeremy Wright questioned the effectiveness of an amendment to the online safety bill by Tory rebels, telling the Commons:
There is a strong case for extending criminal liability but I have to say I think new clause two goes too far.
The former culture secretary said there were two fundamental problems with the amendment, the first being that it “potentially criminalises any breach of a safety duty” as it is drafted too broadly.
He added:
The second difficulty with the new clause, and which I hope the government will pick up when it looks again at this, is the difficulty of prosecuting successfully the sort of offences that we may create.
Updated
Priti Patel thanked ministers for accepting that criminal liability for rogue social media bosses “had to be addressed”.
The Conservative former home secretary also asked for reassurances that the provisions in new clause two will not be “diluted” in the House of Lords by ministers.
She told MPs:
We need to know that those protections will not be diluted. This is such a sensitive issue. And I think we’ve come a long way and that’s very much thanks to all colleagues across both sides of the house as well.
It is important that we get the right outcomes because all of us want to make sure that children are protected from some dreadful harms that we’ve seen online.
Online platforms must go further in giving users a “transparent, effective complaints process”, Labour has said.
Speaking in support of his party’s new clause one, shadow culture minister Alex Davies-Jones said:
It is vital that platforms’ complaints procedures are fit for purpose, and this new clause will finally see the secretary of state publishing a report on the options available to individuals.
We already know that the bill in its current form is failing to consider an appropriate avenue for individual complaints. This really is a classic case of David and Goliath, and it’s about time that these platforms go further in giving their users a transparent, effective complaints process.
Davies-Jones criticised the government for proceeding to remove the clauses around legal but harmful content “in a quiet room on committee corridor” just before Christmas, arguing “this move put the entire bill at risk”.
Updated
Labour will support the third reading of the online safety bill as “each day of inaction allows more and more harm to spread”.
Commenting on the government bowing to pressure from rebel Tories on jail time for rogue social media bosses, shadow culture minister Alex Davies-Jones told the Commons:
It would be remiss of me not to make a brief comment on the government’s last-minute U-turns around this stance on criminal sanctions.
The fact that we are seeing amendments withdrawn at the last minute goes to show that this government have absolutely no idea where they truly stand on these issues; the fact that they are ultimately too weak to stand up against vested interest, whereas Labour are on the side of the public and have consistently put safety at the forefront throughout the bill’s passage.
We need to be moving forwards with this bill, not backwards. That is why, despite a significant government delay, we will support it receiving its third reading, as each day of inaction allows more and more harm to spread online.
Updated
Brexit has led to a shortfall of 330,000 people in the UK labour force, mostly in the low-skilled economy, a report by leading researchers has found.
The UK’s departure from the EU in 2020 led to an increase in immigration from non-EU countries but not enough to compensate for the loss of workers from neighbouring countries, according to the joint findings of the thinktanks Centre for European Reform (CER) and UK in a Changing Europe.
Their calculations took account of recent Office for National Statistics figures that showed an overall reduction in net immigration of 540,000 to June 2022.
Updated
The independent inquiry looking at the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer will also consider the crimes of David Carrick, the home secretary announced.
Suella Braverman told the Commons Dame Elish Angiolini will include the 48-year-old’s offending in her inquiry, which was set up in November 2021.
Describing Carrick’s crimes as “a monstrous campaign of abuse”, Braverman said more shocking cases may come to light as police forces increase their efforts to root out corrupt officers.
Updated
Drakeford criticises UK government for using section 35 order
At Westminster the Labour party has been reluctant to criticise the government for using a section 35 order to block Scotland’s gender recognition reform bill. But in Wales the Labour first minister, Mark Drakeford, has criticised the UK government. As the BBC reports, he told the Senedd today:
The UK government’s decision to use powers that have never been used in the history of devolution is a very dangerous moment.
I agree with the first minister of Scotland that this could be a very slippery slope indeed.
That is all from me for today. My colleague Tom Ambrose is taking over now.
Updated
The government won the vote after the section 35 order debate (see 5.31pm) by 318 votes to 71 – a majority of 247. But the vote does not have any effect, because MPs were just voting on a motion about having had a debate.
Updated
The Scottish government has estimated that between 250 and 300 people will apply for a gender recognition certificate every year if its bill becomes law, the UK document on the section 35 order decision says. That is currently a tenfold increase because only around 30 people currently apply, the document says.
But the current figures say more about the process (widely criticised as intrusive, bureaucratic and time-consuming) than they do about the number of people who might want to legally change gender. The Scottish government says there are around 25,000 trans people in Scotland, of whom only 600 have a gender recognition certificate.
Updated
In the Commons the debate on the section 35 order is now over. A vote is now taking place. It will not have any practical effect – it is just on a motion saying MPs have debated the issue – but SNP MPs are using it to register their opposition.
University staff to go on strike on 1 February, UCU union says
The University and College Union has announced that its latest strike action will begin on 1 February, alongside teachers, railway workers and civil servants, in action likely to affect 150 universities across the UK.
Up to 70,000 UCU members could go on strike as part of their long-running dispute with higher education employers over pay, pensions and working conditions. The 1 February strike is the first of 18 days of action that the union has threatened to take over the next two months.
Jo Grady, UCU’s general secretary, said:
On 1 February, 70,000 university staff will walk out alongside fellow trade unions and hundreds of thousands of other workers to demand their fair share.
UCU remains committed to reaching a negotiated settlement, but if university employers don’t get serious and fast, more strike action will follow in February and March.
Updated
Labour says arguments used by government to justify section 35 order 'pretty weak and pretty flimsy'
Ian Murray, the shadow Scottish secretary, said the reasons given by the government to justify the section 35 order were “pretty weak and pretty flimsy” at first glance.
But he refused to condemn the use of the section 35 order outright, and instead he criticised both the UK and Scottish governments, depicting them both as unreasonable. He told MPs:
It’s very difficult to conclude anything other than today’s debate being about two governments who are incapable of working together.
Murray also repeatedly sought to avoid saying whether Labour was in favour or against the section 35 order.
My colleague Peter Walker has not had any more luck trying to get an answer on this from Labour HQ.
For those following Labour's attempt to not really engage with the debate, I have asked two arms of the party's press office whether Ian Murray's speech meant he supported or opposed the use of section 35, with the questions met so far by tumbleweed.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) January 17, 2023
In the debate on section 35 order the SNP’s Hannah Bardell criticised those Tories who are unhappy about the Scottish gender recognition reform bill on the grounds that it will “remove any requirement for third-party verification or
evidence from the process”. She told MPs:
If I’m not wrong, when I came out I did not have to seek verification from anybody to be a lesbian.
So I do not understand why we’re treating trans people as if they’re applying for some kind of arbitrary, inanimate thing. This is about their identity, this is about their lives and it’s about their livelihood, and we should treat them with the dignity and respect that they deserve.
Updated
Donelan says government to go ahead with ban on conversion practices, including for trans people
Michelle Donelan, the culture secretary, has announced that the government will go ahead with a ban on conversion practices.
Curiously, she has made the announcement in a Commons written statement, which is mostly about the online safety bill, and which provides details of the concession to potential Tory rebels revealed last night ahead of the debate due later this evening.
The government has shifted all over the place on a conversion therapy ban over the past year. The Tories were committed to a full ban under Theresa May, and the pledge remained when Boris Johnson replaced her. Then, in March last year, it was reported that Johnson was dropping the promise. The revelation triggered a backlash, and within hours the government said it would go ahead with a ban – but only for conversion practices aimed at gay people, not for those aimed at trans people.
Now the full ban, including trans conversion practices, is back on, Donelan says. She says:
We are announcing today that the government will publish a draft bill which will set out a proposed approach to ban conversion practices, this will apply to England and Wales. The bill will protect everyone, including those targeted on the basis of their sexuality, or being transgender.
The government will publish the draft bill shortly and will ask for pre-legislative scrutiny by a joint committee in this parliamentary session.
The announcement seems timed to appease the relatively small cohort of Tory MPs who speak out on LGBTQ+ rights and who will have been concerned by the section 35 order decision, and particularly by claims that it is part of a No 10 “culture war” agenda.
In fact, Rishi Sunak seems notably less keen on “culture war” politics than Johnson was. Downing Street has not put up Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister and someone who relishes “culture war” battles, to comment on the section 35 order, and although in the Commons earlier many Tory MPs were eager to attack the Scottish bill on the grounds that it was a supposed threat to women and girls in the UK, Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary, did not talk up these concerns. Instead, he focused more on the constitutional issues.
Updated
How UK government argues Scottish gender recognition bill might stop some Britons claiming equal pay
In the Commons Pete Wishart (SNP) told MPs that, after a brief look at the government document, he thought its arguments were “specious” and “hypothetical”. He claimed the UK government seemed to be arguing that, under the Scottish bill, a man might change gender so that he could qualify for lower pay.
One example of that is on equal pay – they seem to believe a trans man would take advantage of the opportunity to be paid less. That’s the type of rubbish that’s included in this.
This generated much laughter in the Commons. In fact, the document does not say that. But what it does say is almost as improbable.
He was referring to a passage in the document that implies that the Scottish bill could undermine equal pay law because, if a worker changes gender, but they also happen to be the best comparator for someone bringing an equal pay dispute, then the person bringing that claim might be disadvantaged. The document says:
Where a claimant may deem a colleague to be the most appropriate comparator of the opposite sex, but that colleague then receives a GRC, the 2010 Act would not enable them to be cited as the comparator in the claim. This could prevent the comparator test from accurately identifying what might otherwise have been deemed unlawful.
As the criteria for being issued with a GRC under the 2004 Act presently mean GRCs can only be issued to a small group who have lived in their acquired gender for at least 2 years, the effect of this on equal pay provisions is significantly limited.
However, the bill will allow a new and significantly broader category of people to change their legal sex. As more individuals are eligible to change their legal sex, the adverse effect on the operation of the 2010 Act’s equal pay provisions grows. In particular, an individual’s ability to gain a full GRC after living in their acquired gender for 6 or 9 months would increase the likelihood of equal pay claims involving individuals who had started and completed the gender recognition process only relatively recently or who obtained a GRC while a claim was ongoing.
Many of us would conclude that the chances of this happening – in equal pay cases where no other “comparators” are available – seem very, very remote. And the chances of this producing a genuine equal pay injustice seem non-existent.
In its own document the government admits these issues “may arise infrequently”. But it claims in some instances these issues could be “significant”.
Updated
UK government claims 'careful balance' of Equality Act undermined by Scottish law
Here is an extract from the government document published this afternoon explaining its reasons for blocking the Scottish government’s gender recognition reform bill. This summarises why the government thinks the bill undermines the Equality Act 2010.
The government is saying the “careful balance” of the Equality Act would be undermined by the Scottish bill.
The 2010 Act makes “sex” a protected characteristic and makes provisions about when conduct relating to that protected characteristic is unlawful. Section 9 of the 2004 Act provides that unless exceptions apply, the effect of a full GRC [gender recognition certificate] is that “for all purposes” the person’s sex becomes as certified. As a matter of general principle, a full GRC has the effect of changing the sex that a person has as a protected characteristic for the purposes of the 2010 Act. This is subject to a contrary intention being established in relation to the interpretation of particular provisions of the 2010 Act.
The 2010 Act as a whole was carefully drafted in the light of, and reflecting, the specific limits of the 2004 [Gender Recognition] Act and the relative difficulty with which a person could legally change their sex “for all purposes” (per s.9), including under the 2010 Act itself. The bill alters that careful balance.
The bill also has practical consequences on the operation of the law as it applies to other reserved matters. The most notable example is the administration of tax, benefit and state pensions managed by integrated systems across the UK that span reserved and devolved functions. The reserved matters to which the law applies are “fiscal policy” and “social security”.
The secretary of state believes that the modifications to the 2004 Act as it applies to reserved matters would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters.
These adverse effects can be grouped into 3 overall areas of concern set out the in following sections of this document:
Part 2: The impacts of the creation of 2 parallel and very different regimes for issuing and interpreting GRCs within the UK.
Part 3: The impacts that removing safeguards could have on safety, in particular that of women and girls, given the significantly increased potential for fraudulent applications to be successful.
Part 4: The impacts on the operation of the Equality Act 2010 that result from the fact that a GRC changes a person’s protected characteristic of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act , and the expansion of the cohort of people able to obtain a GRC. This includes (a) the exacerbation of issues that already exist under the current GRC regime, and (b) the creation of new ones.
Updated
In the Commons Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminister is now opening the debate on the section 35 order.
He says that if Tory MPs object to the gender recognition reform bill, they should go up to Scotland and get elected, so they can vote on it in the Scottish parliament. It is a Scottish matter, he says.
Sturgeon confirms Scottish government will go to court to challenge UK government's decision to block its bill
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has confirmed that the Scottish government will go to court to challenge the UK government’s decision to block its gender recognition reform bill. In an interview with the BBC, she said:
In doing so we will be vigorously defending something else, and that is the institution of the Scottish parliament and the ability of MSPs, democratically elected, to legislate in areas of our competence. In short, we’ll be defending Scottish democracy.
Updated
UK government publishes document explaining why it is blocking Scottish gender recognition bill
The Government Equalities Office has now published the “statement of reasons” explaining why the UK government has issued a section 35 order to block the Scottish government’s gender recognition bill. It’s here.
Speaker urged to postpone section 35 emergency debate until MPs have had chance to read government's arguments
Back in the Commons Ian Murray, the shadow Scottish secretary, raises a point of order. He says there is no point having an emergency debate on the section 35 order until the “statement of reasons”, the government document setting out why it is issuing a section 35 order, has been published. He says it is not out until later.
Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary, says he laid the section 35 order at 12.34pm. He says it takes time for the Commons authorities to clear it, and it is not due out from them until 5pm. But he says he has arranged for the government to publish it on its website. It is being published now. He says it will be emailed to Murray and other spokespeople too.
Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, suggests the debate is postponed until MPs have had a chance to read it.
Updated
At the Institute for Government conference Penny Mordaunt (see 2.45pm) was followed by Lisa Nandy, the shadow levelling up secretary, who gave her own analysis of why the country is facing so many challenges.
She said “every major challenge comes down to one thing” - the government having “written off the talent, the potential and assets of most of our people in almost every part of Britain”.
She said it was a “social crime”, as “no part of Britain can succeed unless we grow ourselves in every part”.
She said the “waves of political upheaval” felt in the UK had been “the sound of people demanding to take charge of their own destiny”.
Nandy said Labour’s mission would be “ending a century of centralisation”, which she described as “at the heart of whether this country has a future”.
Instead of the government’s “vague” levelling up targets, she said Labour would look to establish an independent advisory council drawn from every part of the UK to monitor the government’s progress against metrics which deliver tangible outcomes.
These metrics will be based on principles including resilience, connectivity to education, training, work, healthcare, family and friends, sustainability, and wellbeing.
Updated
Commons speaker allows emergency debate on constitutional impact of section 35 decision
The Alister Jack statement is over. But Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster has just made an application for an emergency debate under standing order 24 on the democratic shortfall illustrated by the UK government’s rejection of the gender recognition bill.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, said he was satisfied this was a legitimate subject for debate. There were no objections
That means the debate, which will last two hours, will go ahead this afternoon, starting after the 10-minute rule bill under way now.
Updated
Poorer people in UK feel system ‘rigged against them’, says Penny Mordaunt
Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, has given a damning assessment of the state of the UK, where she said many people feel things do not work for them and the poorest think the system is rigged against them, arguing that democracy and capitalism are hanging in the balance. My colleague Rowena Mason has the story here.
Dave Doogan (SNP) says Jack “hasn’t got a clue” on the substance of this debate, given by what he has been saying in this statement.
Jack concedes courts will decide whether UK government right about risk posed by Scottish gender bill
Christine Jardine (Lib Dem) says, as a Scottish woman and mother, she has heard the concerns about the bill. She has searched it for evidence that it does pose a risk. But she cannot find them. And some of the finest legal minds in the country have said the same. But she can see the part of the bill that guarantees the Equality Act. So can Jack point to the bit of the bill that does pose a risk?
Jack says he is trying to protect the vulnerable. He says legal opinion may be divided, but the government has taken its advice, saying there is a risk.
He says Nicola Sturgeon says she will take this to judicial review. He goes on:
So we will find out whether the court of opinion that I’ve been hearing is right or wrong when we go to the legal courts.
James Daly (Con) says if Jack has had advice that this legislation impinges on the rights of women and children, then he would be criticised for not acting.
Jack says “absolutely”.
Paul Bristow (Con) says that for the SNP this is just about “bashing the UK” and that for them the rights of women are just “collateral damage”.
Updated
Jonathan Gullis (Con) says the politicisation of the rights of girls and women by the SNP is “an abomination”.
Mhairi Black, the SNP’s deputy leader at Westminster, says the Scottish bill was the most consulted on in the parliament’s history. So the claim it was rushed is a “lie”, she says.
Ben Bradshaw (Lab) says Jack in his statement did not give a clear explanation as to why the Scottish bill undermines the Equality Act. It is not enough for Jack to say he will publish something. Can he explain it now? And what will the government do about foreign nationals who come to the UK from countries that have a form of self-recognition.
On the latter point, Jack says the equalities minister has done a written statement on this.
Jack says the statement of reasons explains how the Scottish bill would impact on two UK laws. He does not want to “bore everyone to death” by going through those reasons now, he says.
Caroline Johnson (Con) says the SNP rushed this bill through the Scottish parliament.
That generates shrieks of outrage from some SNP MPs. The Scottish government spent six years consulting on, preparing and passing the bill.
Jack says 347 bills have gone through the Scottish parliament, and this is the first time a section 35 order has been used.
Rachel Maclean (Con) says there is a clear risk that the Scottish bill could lead to Scottish trans women accessing single-sex spaces across the UK.
Jack says the government is concerned to protect women and girls. He repeats his claim that there is a risk of “bad faith actors” exploiting this law. (See 1.54pm.)
Updated
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Lab) says the government opened up a debate on reforming the Gender Recognition Act five years ago, but did nothing about it. Now it is using this to attack the Scottish government. He says the claim that the UK government is motivated by equality concerns is a lie.
Jack says the Lady Haldane judgment from December (see 10.39am) is part of what has created a problem, as the UK government sees it.
Tim Loughton (Con) says what most concerns him about the Scottish legislation is the fact it gives 16-year-olds the right to decide to change gender. He accuses the SNP of weaponising this issue for political purposes, and exploiting vulnerable children.
Jack says he agrees.
Updated
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Con) says he was Tory spokesperson on devolution when the Scottish devolution legislation was being debated in 1998. He says the Labour government at the time that equal opportunities rights were not be devolved. There was a vote, and the SNP lost the vote on this. And so the SNP should accept the terms of devolution. And, referring to Labour, he says the architects of devolution have been replaced by “weasels”.
He is referring to Labour’s reluctance now to say whether it is for or against the use of the section 35 order.
Updated
Philippa Whitford, the SNP’s Scotland spokesperson, says this is an unprecedented attack on the Scottish parliament.
Gender recognition is a devolved issue, she says.
The Scottish bill will not give extra rights to people with a gender recognition process.
She says the UN recommends changes to a statutory gender recognition process of the kind introduced by Scotland, and many other countries have done the same.
She says the bill will not change the Equality Act. She asks Jack to explain why he thinks it will. And she asks why the government did not raise concerns about this until the very last month.
She accuses him of using “one of the most marginalised groups in society” to pick a fight with the Scottish government.
And she points out that for hundreds of years Scotland had different laws on things like age and marriage.
Jack says he disagrees with most of what Whitford said. He says his reasons will be set out in the statement coming later.
UPDATE: Whitford said:
Why did he not raise specific concerns during the two consultations carried out by the Scottish Parliament or in response to the cabinet secretary’s letter in October rather than a response that came three days before the final debate on the bill?
What modifications is he suggesting to the bill that wouldn’t include a return to the outmoded, medicalised process? Why is he using one of the most marginalised groups in society to pick a fight with the Scottish parliament?
Is he seriously, after 300 years of different marriage ages and voting ages, suggesting there can no longer be legal or age differences north and south of the border? And does he recognise that vetoing this bill simply highlights the hollow reality of devolution?
Updated
Douglas Ross, the Scottish Conservative leader (he is an MSP as well as an MP), accuses Nicola Sturgeon of trying to turn this into a “political battle” when all the UK government is trying to do is protect the rights of women and girls.
Jack is responding to Murray.
He says the legal test under section 35 is “adverse effect”. The government has concluded there was adverse affect in two areas.
The details will be in the “statement of reasons” being published today, he says.
Labour says government has allowed gender recognition row to turn into 'constitution bunfight'
Ian Murray, the shadow Scottish secretary, says this is an incredibly serious moment.
He says the public have been let down by the conflict between the Scottish and UK government. This has been allowed to turn into a “constitution bunfight”.
He says, if the Scottish government is right about their bill not undermining UK equality law, the courts will strike out the section 35 order.
He asks Jack to give details of how the bill would undermine UK law.
And he suggests the government should ask the Equality and Human Rights Commission to advice on how the Scottish law can be compatible with UK equality law.
Labour supports updating gender recognition law, he says.
Updated
Alister Jack tells MPs Scottish gender recognition bill could allow 'more fraudulent or bad faith applications'
Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary, tells MPs that he has issued a section 35 order to stop the Scottish gender recognition reform bill getting royal assent.
He says the government will be publishing a document today setting out in details its reasons.
He says section 35 was included in the Scotland Act for an occasion like this. This is not an attack on devolution, he says. And the fact that the power has not been used before shows it is not being used lightly.
He says the Scottish legislation would undermine UK equality law.
He says he hopes the UK and Scottish governments can work together on a new bill.
UPDATE: Jack said:
I have not taken this decision lightly. The government has looked closely at the potential impact of the bill and I’ve considered all relevant policy and operational implications together with the minister for women and equalities.
And it is our assessment that the bill would have a serious adverse impact among other things on the operation of the Equality Act 2010.
Those adverse effects include impacts on the operation of single-sex clubs, associations and schools and protections such as equal pay.
The government shares the concerns of many members of the public and civic society groups regarding the potential impact of the Bill on women and girls.
The bill also risks creating significant complications from having two different gender recognition regimes in the UK and allowing more fraudulent or bad faith applications.
The government is today publishing a full statement of reasons alongside the order which will set in full the adverse effects the government is concerned about.
Updated
Braverman's statement on David Carrick - snap verdict
Suella Braverman only became home secretary in October last year. The problem with misogyny and criminality in the Met police (and other forces) goes back years and decades, and so no one can fairly blame her for the culture that allowed David Carrick to get away with what he did for so long.
And no one was blaming her personally when she delivered her statement. Even Yvette Cooper was careful to stress that her criticism was aimed at the record of the government over years.
But, on an occasion like this, a minister does have to convince MPs that they have grasped the seriousness of the problem, and that they have the authority and grip to do something about it. And that’s where Braverman fell down today. She announced that the Wayne Couzens review would be expanded to cover the Carrick case, and she announced a review into police dismissals.
Yet neither of these announcements seemed to impress her own MPs – let alone the opposition – and what was really telling was the number of Tory backbenchers who said they agreed with Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, who called for the sacking of officers and managers who had allowed Carrick to get away with what he did.
In the past, rightwing Tory MPs used to dismiss Harman as the epitome of what the Daily Mail would call “wokeness”. The fact that this afternoon they thought she was talking more sense than Braverman shows quite how weak the home secretary’s performance was.
Updated
Philip Hollobone (Con) says he agrees totally with what Harriet Harman said about the need for the government to bring forward new regulations now to allow the police to sack corrupt officers more easily.
Braverman agrees. She says action is being taken.
Theresa Villiers (Con) says she has seldom seen such a “palpable sense of shock” in the Commons as she has seen today.
Laura Farris (Con) says police officers seem to apply a code of omerta when misconduct allegations are being investigated. She says these inquiries should be completely outsourced.
Braverman acknowledges there are systemic problems. She says now is the time to fix them.
Updated
Florence Eshalomi (Lab) says women and girls cannot be confident in coming forward with complaints because the prosecution rate for rape is so low.
Braverman says more rape cases are being charged and prosecuted. She says she expects conviction rates to go up too.
Allan Dorans (SNP) says, as as former police inspector, he is shocked by this case. On behalf of honest police officers, he offers his apologies to the victims. He calls for disciplinary action against any officers, past or present, who failed to report concerns about David Carrick.
Braverman says current misconduct investigations are taking too long. She says whatever needs to change, she will do it.
Simon Fell (Con) says it is “shameful” that David Carrick was allowed to carry on for so long in the light of what the Met knew about him. He says people want “concrete action, and action quickly”. When will people see that?
Braverman agrees. She says a review of vetting capacity recently showed that many forces have improved their vetting.
Another Conservative, Lee Anderson, also says “the managers who knew about this” should be sacked. They should lose their pensions too, he says.
Braverman says she will not shy away from making sure that cases like this do not get repeated.
Dawn Butler (Lab) goes next, and, in response to what Nickie Aiken said, she says that Sadiq Khan sacked the previous Met commissioner, Dame Cressida Dick, partly because of her failure to address these issues.
Braverman says London mayor Sadiq Khan should be doing more on police standards
Nickie Aiken (Con) says Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, is ultimately responsible for the Met. She says he has been “missing in action” on this issue.
Braverman agrees. She says the mayor does oversee the Met. She says there should be “greater focus” and “greater priority” from him on this issue.
James Daly (Con) says he agrees with Harriet Harman (see 1.09pm). Officers who did not take action against David Carrick should be sacked, he says.
Braverman says Carrick was first vetted in 2001. And she says she wants to gently “push back” against what Daly is saying. She says she has confidence in Sir Mark Rowley, the Met commissioner, to address this.
Harriet Harman calls for action against Met officers who failed to take action against Carrick
Harriet Harman, the mother of the house (longest serving female MP), says she completely agrees with what Yvette Cooper says. She says the government should bring forward draft regulations to make it easier for the police to sack unethical officers.
And she says there were management figures in the Met who thought it was acceptable for David Carrick to be given more responsibilities. She suggests action should be taken against those senior officers.
And she asks for an inquiry into officers who were aware of Carrick’s “banter” and did nothing to report him. They were “colluding” with him, she says.
Braverman says the review she has announced (see 12.42pm) will cover how disciplinary proceedings are carried out.
With regard to the Met, she says the commissioner has set up an anti-corruption and abuse command. An extra 100 officers were brought in to identify officers acting in a corrupt mannter.
Updated
Tim Loughton (Con), a member of the home affairs committee, asks why officers who are being investigated over misconduct allegations are put on light duties, instead of just being suspended.
Braverman says Loughton has raised an important point. She says that is why she has asked for a review of how disciplinary proceedings against officers are carried out.
Alison Thewliss, the SNP’s spokesperson on home affairs, says this case is incredibly disturbing. She asks about the Met review of 800 officers who have been accused of sexual or domestic abuse. She asks for an assurance that MPs will be kept informed of what it concludes.
Braverman confirms that this work is going on.
Priti Patel, the former home secretary, says there are already recommendations on the table for addressing this. She says she herself put some forward when she was in office. It is time to put them on the statute book, she says.
Braverman thanks Patel for her leadership on this.
Braverman is responding to Cooper.
She says it is disappointing that Labour is trying to politicise this issue. She accuses Cooper of using “cheap political lines”.
She says she will not shy away from demanding change.
Updated
Labour accuses government of 'lack of leadership on police standards for years'
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, is responding to Braverman.
She says the David Carrick case shows an appalling catalogue of failures. Suella Braverman’s response was “very weak” and showed a “serious lack of leadership”, she says.
She says the Metropolitan police should have acted against Carrick much earlier. There was a rape allegation against him in July 2021, and the Met did not act, even though they knew that he had been the subject of domestic abuse allegations two years earlier.
She says there has been a “lack of leadership from the government on police standards for years”.
Labour would completely overhaul the police misconduct and standards system, she says.
UPDATE: Cooper said:
We have to face up to the further evidence that this case has brought up, of appalling failures in the police vetting and misconduct processes that are still not being addressed by the government and are not being addressed in this statement.
I would say to the home secretary that given the scale of the problems, not just in this case, but in previous cases as well, her statement is very weak and it shows a serious lack of leadership on something that is so grave and affects confidence in policing as well as serious crimes …
After the cases right across the country of abuse or of misogyny, Labour has demanded change. Conservative ministers promised action would be taken but they have failed to do so.
Labour will change the law, Labour will overhaul the vetting, misconduct and standards system, because it is time to change and we are letting down police officers across the country who do excellent work and who are being let down by these failures in the system, and most of all women are being let down.
Updated
Here is a clip of Braverman’s statement.
"It's imperative that this cannot happen again"
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) January 17, 2023
Home Secretary Suella Braverman says "yesterday was a dark day for British policing" as Metropolitan Police officer David Carrick admitted dozens of rape and sexual offences https://t.co/9IISgok0aI pic.twitter.com/iPHoEBEWH3
Braverman says Carrick case will be included as part of inquiry into Wayne Couzens
Suella Braverman is making her statement now.
She describes David Carrick’s crime’s as appalling, and pays tribute to the victims.
And she says the Carrick case will be considered as part of the Angiolini inquiry into Wayne Couzens. She says Lady Elish Angiolina has agreed to this.
Braverman also says she has ordered a review into police dismissals.
Bureaucracy and process appear to have prevailed over ethics and common-sense. That’s why I have announced an internal review into police dismissals. The review’s terms of reference are being published today.
UPDATE: Braverman said:
Yesterday was a dark day for British policing and the Metropolitan Police as an officer admitted being responsible for a monstrous campaign of abuse.
I am sure the whole house will want to join me in expressing my sympathy to the victims and thank them for their courage in coming forward.
It is intolerable for them to have suffered as they have. They were manipulated and isolated and subjected to horrific abuse.
For anyone to have gone through such torment is harrowing, but for it to have happened at the hands of someone they entrusted to keep people safe is almost beyond comprehension …
I discussed this case yesterday with the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Sir Mark Rowley, and I’m encouraged by the action he has taken so far with his team to root out officers who are not fit to wear the badge.
This effort is being spearheaded by a new anti-corruption and abuse command. But there is still some way to go to ensure that the force can command the trust of the people it serves.
It is vital that the Metropolitan police and other forces double down on their efforts to root out corrupt officers; this may mean more shocking cases come to light in the short-term.
It’s a matter of the utmost importance that there are robust processes in place to stop the wrong people joining the police in the first place, which is why the government has invested in improving recruitment processes and supporting vetting as part of over £3bn that we have provided for the police uplift programme.
I expect this work to continue at pace and for all chief constables to prioritise delivery of the recommendations made by the police inspectorate’s recent report on vetting, counter-corruption and misogyny. It’s now for the Metropolitan police to demonstrate that they have an effective plan in place to rapidly improve their vetting processes.
Updated
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, tells MPs before the statement starts that they have to comply with the sub judice rule. He says this applies until someone has been sentenced, and so it still applies to David Carrick.
He urges MPs to focus on policy issues, and avoid speculation on sentencing.
Suella Braverman to make statement to MPs about rapist police officer David Carrick
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, is about to make a statement to MPs about “police conduct in the light of the case of David Carrick”.
Last night she said:
This appalling incident represents a breach of trust and will affect people’s confidence in the police.
Rishi Sunak and Braverman both raised the case at cabinet this morning, No 10 said. In its cabinet readout, Downing Street said:
The prime minister opened cabinet by saying that everyone would have been appalled by the crimes of David Carrick.
He said the case undermines public confidence in the police which is essential for them to do their jobs.
The prime minister said people like Carrick should never have been a police officer and that we need to see real change quickly.
He added that the police must address the failings that happened in this case, restore public confidence, and do everything possible to ensure women and girls are safe in their communities and homes.
The home secretary said the case was a tragedy with significant failings in vetting and recruitment. She said £3bn has been invested to improve these processes and that the new Met commissioner was committed to tackling the problem.
No 10 slaps down Gillian Keegan, saying 16 too young for people to be allowed to change gender
At the Downing Street lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson in effect slapped down Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, for suggesting this morning that people were old enough to decide if they wanted to change gender at 16. (See 9.37am.)
Asked if 16 was old enough to change gender, the spokesperson said:
As you know, we consulted on that issue and set out the position that 18 is the correct age for transgender people to change their sex.
To be fair, Keegan also slapped down herself this morning, saying in a subsequent interview that when she described 16 as old, she was only referring to some teenagers, and thinking about herself at that age.
Asked again about Keegan’s comment, the spokesperson said: “She made clear herself that she was talking about her own personal standpoint.”
Updated
Braverman to answer urgent question on David Carrick case
There are now going to be two statements in the Commons after business questions. At 12.30pm Suella Braverman, the home secretary, is giving one about the David Carrick case. That means Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary, will not be giving the section 35 order one until around 1.30pm.
Updated
I am sorry the comments are closed at the moment. There has been an update this morning that has created a glitch with the system, but the developers are trying to fix it as quickly as possible.
Labour has been anxious to avoid taking sides on the Scottish gender recognition reform bill. Although Keir Starmer has criticised aspects of the bill, and argued it might have an impact on UK equality laws, he has accused both the UK and Scottish governments of politicising the issues and implied that Labour would adopt a more consensual approach.
Lucy Powell, the shadow culture secretary, adopted this line in interviews this morning, saying the issue should not be part of a “constitutional standoff between the SNP Scottish government and the Conservative UK government”.
But, in an interview with Times Radio, Powell refused to say whether she personally was in favour of allowing people to get a gender recognition certificate through self-certification (as the Scottish bill proposes), instead of providing medical evidence of gender dysphoria (as UK law mandates), and whether she was in favour of people being able to change gender at 16 (as Scotland proposes), instead of 18.
Powell just said there were “a range of different opinions across the Labour party” on this and that she had her own views, “which I’m going to keep to myself”.
Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary, will make a statement to MPs about the gender recognition reform bill, the Commons authorities have confirmed. It should start around 12.30pm.
Also confirmed:
— UK House of Commons (@HouseofCommons) January 17, 2023
• Statement from Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack: "Exercise of section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 with regard to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill."
A reader has pointed out that this passage, from a briefing on the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s website, dated 4 April 2022, seems to back up the Scottish government’s case, not the UK government’s, in the row about the gender recognition reform bill. It says:
Because the operation of the Equality Act gender reassignment exceptions does not rely on possession, or not, of a gender recognition certificate, any reform of the Gender Recognition Act will not erode the special status of services provided separately for men and women, or for men or women only, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, such as domestic abuse refuges, health services and clubs. We have issued clear, practical guidance for providers of separate and single-sex services to help them fully understand how to meet the needs of all women and men.
Updated
Labour claims online safety bill concession from 'weak' Sunak does not go far enough
Last night the government backed down, in the face of a potential revolt by Tory MPs that could have led to a defeat on the online safety bill, and agreed to amend the legislation so that social media executives who persistently fail to protect children could be jailed. My colleague Dan Milmo has the story here.
This morning Lucy Powell, the shadow culture secretary, said the climbdown was a sign of weakness. She also claimed the concession did not go far enough. She said:
Labour has been calling for stronger criminal sanctions for months, however the enforcement is now over a narrower set of measures after the government gutted much of the bill before Christmas.
We’ve got no idea where the government truly stand on these issues. They’ve flip-flopped, one minute massively weakening the bill, the next minute forced into a minor strengthening.
Rishi Sunak is too weak to stand up against vested interest. Labour is on the side of the public.
Updated
Real-terms UK pay fell at fastest rates for 20 years at end of 2022
Average real-terms pay in Britain fell at among the fastest rates for more than two decades at the end of 2022, as public sector pay deals continue to fall behind the private sector during the cost of living crisis, latest figures from the ONS show. My colleague Richard Partington has the story here.
Scottish government rejects claim its gender recognition bill undermines equality law
Scotland’s gender recognition reform bill has triggered a constitutional row because health (and gender recognition) are devolved matters, but equality law is a matter for the UK parliament.
In her Today interview Shona Robison, the Scottish government’s social justice secretary, insisted that the gender recognition reform bill would not undermine or change UK equality law. This is an argument the Scottish government has been making for some time, and Robison said this morning.
[The bill] simplifies the process for obtaining a gender recognition certificate. It does not change the effect of having one. All of the protections under the equality legislation remain exactly the same.
And she stressed that a clause has been included in the bill making exactly this point.
The UK government has not given detailed reasons yet as to why it has decided that the Scottish government is wrong on this point. In his statement last night Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary, just said he was concerned the bill would have “an adverse impact on the operation of Great Britain-wide equalities legislation”.
But last week Policy Exchange, a Tory thinktank with considerable influence over government thinking, published a report saying the UK government should block the Scottish bill. It explained by referring to a recent court decision. The report, written by Michael Foran, a law lecturer at Glasgow University, says:
The law regulating legal sex change is found in the Gender Recognition Act 2004, an Act of Parliament that applies across the UK and which addresses both reserved and devolved matters. It provides that to change one’s legal sex, one must first be diagnosed with gender dysphoria and undergo a two-year period of medically supervised social transition. The Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill could change all this for those born or resident in Scotland. If enacted, the Bill would remove the requirement to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, reduce the statutory waiting time from two years to three months, and lower the minimum age for a legal sex change to sixteen.
Whether or not this has any effect on the operation of the Equality Act – adverse or otherwise – depends on whether a change in “legal sex” changes one’s “sex” for the purposes of the Equality Act. For a time, the answer to this legal question was not clear and arguments could be – and were – advanced on both sides. But on 13 December 2022, Lady Haldane decided the For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers (FWS2) case in the Outer House of the Court of Session. Her Ladyship’s decision was that a Gender Recognition Certificate, issued under the 2004 Act, does alter one’s sex for the purposes of the Equality Act, including for provisions relating to the advancement of diversity via positive measures.
The Policy Exchange paper argues that this ruling will have “profound implications”, including “making it potentially more difficult for women-only spaces to exclude biological males”.
Asked about this argument in her Today interview, Robison insisted that, although the bill would change the rules about obtaining a gender recognition certificate, it would not change the effect of having such a certificate.
Asked if it would be harder to restrict female-only spaces to people born as biologically female, she replied:
The protections under the equality legislation have exemptions. So [in] a female-only space, trans women, whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate, can be excluded from that female-only space. That is the current position. It remans the position. This bill changes none of that.
Aslef says train drivers to stage fresh strikes on 1 and 3 February
Train drivers are to stage fresh strikes after the rejection of a pay offer, PA Media reports. PA says:
Members of Aslef will walk out on February 1 and 3, causing more travel disruption across the country.
The first strike will coincide with a walkout by 100,000 civil servants in their dispute over pay and jobs, a strike by teachers over pay and nationwide protests against the government’s controversial new strike law.
Mick Whelan, Aslef general secretary, said: “The offer is not acceptable but we are willing to engage in further discussions with the train operating companies.”
The companies affected include Avanti West Coast; Chiltern Railways; CrossCountry; East Midlands Railway; Great Western Railway; Greater Anglia; GTR Great Northern Thameslink; London North Eastern Railway; Northern Trains; Southeastern; Southern/Gatwick Express; South Western Railway (depot drivers only); SWR Island Line; TransPennine Express; and West Midlands Trains.
Scottish government rejects Sunak's offer to cooperate on revised gender bill, implying it will go to court instead
In his statement last night Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary, said the UK government was blocking the Scottish gender recognition reform bill because it might have an adverse impact on UK equality legislation. But he said the UK goverment would be willing to work with the Scottish government to ensure a revised Scottish bill did not present this problem. He said:
If the Scottish government chooses to bring an amended bill back for reconsideration in the Scottish parliament, I hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward that both respects devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation.
In an interview with the Today programme this morning Shona Robison, who as social justice secretary in the Scottish government took the bill through the Scottish parliament rejected this offer.
The Scottish government does not accept that the bill does impact on UK equality legislation – it even includes a clause specifically saying it has no impact on the Equality Act – and Robison said she did not think Jack’s offer was sincere.
She said that, if the UK government genuinely believed that it had legal grounds to challenge the bill because of its impact on UK equality law, it would have used a section 33 order instead of a section 35 one. Section 33 of the Scotland Act allows the UK or Scottish government to refer a bill to the supreme court for a ruling on whether or not it is legal under the devolution settlement that reserves some matters to Westminster. This has happened in the past (unlike the use of a section 35 order).
Robison went on:
Using the section 35 nuclear option, I think, reveals that they don’t have a legal basis to challenge it, and this is more about the politics than it is about the legislation.
And I don’t think the UK government are going to come forward with a suggestions of a tweak here or a tweak there. They are fundamentally against this bill. They don’t like this bill.
And they are using their power to stop the democratically elected Scottish parliament taking forward legislation that had the overwhelming support fo that parliament.
The Scottish government is instead expected to go to court itself to challenge the legality of the UK government’s 35 order. That dispute would end up in the supreme court.
Updated
Gillian Keegan rows back after saying 16 not too young to change gender - as Scotland's bill would allow
Good morning. Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary, is one of the least known and most powerless members of the cabinet. The Scottish government largely decides how public services are delivered in Scotland, and where the UK government is in overall charge, it is generally another cabinet minister, not Jack. But today he finds himself at the centre of an unprecedented row between Westminster and Holyrood, because he is the minister who has to issue the section 35 order that the UK government is using to block the Scottish government’s gender recognition reform bill. It is the first time a section 35 order has been issued since devolution started almost a quarter of a century ago.
Jack issued a statement about this last night, but he is expected to face questions from MPs when he delivers a statement to the Commons later. Here is our overnight story.
Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, was doing the morning interview round today. One of the objections to the Scottish bill is that it will allow people to start the process of changing gender from the age of 16 and, when asked if she thought this was too young on Sky News, she did not agree. She replied:
No, I don’t actually [think 16 is too young]. I was working at 16, I was paying tax at 16, I was making decisions for myself at 16.
This made her sound more liberal on this than Keir Starmer, who yesterday said he thought 16 was too young.
But, by the time she appeared on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, perhaps realising that her initial answer put her at odds with her Tory colleagues, she said that for some people, 16 might be too young. Asked about her answer earlier on Sky, she said:
I said ‘Look, you know, at 16, I was working, I was paying tax’, but all 16-year-olds are different.
Obviously, everybody has a different view. It’s really, really important that we take into account parents’ views, teachers’ views, children’s views, and other stakeholders’ views as well because it is quite tricky.
But what I said was, you know, for me, myself, I felt able to take decisions for myself at 16. But... I’d grown up quite quickly and I was actually working full-time at 16.
Keegan also said that the government was right to intervene, and that the section 35 process was included in the Scotland Act precisely for circumstances like this. She said:
The secretary of state for Scotland has used this power because we can’t have two competing gender and equality legislations.
So we need to look at that and need to work out what to do, and he’ll be setting out and making a statement later on today in parliament.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Rishi Sunak chairs cabinet.
11.30am: Grant Shapps, the business secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
11.30am: Downing Street holds its lobby briefing.
12pm: Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, speaks at an Institute for Government conference. Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, and Lisa Nandy, the shadow levelling up secretary, are also speaking.
After 12.30pm: Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary, is expected to make a statement to MPs about the government’s decision to block Scotland’s gender recognition reform bill.
Afternoon: MPs debate the remaining stages of the online safety bill. Ministers will confirm that, in response to a potential revolt by Tory MPs, they will accept an amendment that could see social media executives facing jail if they persistently fail to protect children.
I’ll try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter. I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
Alternatively, you can email me at andrew.sparrow@theguardian.com
Updated
