Liberty loses bid to bring legal action against equalities body
The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment.
The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful.
Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.'
'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added.
At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services.
The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'.
Ms Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'.
She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.'
Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'.
Ms Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.'
Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'.
James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'.
He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point.
'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.'
The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'.
He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.'
Mr Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024.
Following the ruling, EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner said the commission's approach 'has been fair and appropriate throughout'.
She continued: 'Our six-week consultation period represents a balance between gathering comprehensive stakeholder input and addressing the urgent need for clarity. We're particularly encouraged by the thousands of consultation responses already received and look forward to further meaningful engagement through the rest of the process.
'The current climate of legal uncertainty and widespread misinformation serves nobody – particularly those with protected characteristics who rightly expect clarity about their rights. A swift resolution to this uncertainty will benefit everyone, including trans people.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Edinburgh Reporter
2 hours ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Lorna Slater will stand for leadership and selection
In just under a year's time the Scottish Parliamentary election will have decided who will be running the government for the following five years. As is the way of the polls there are some showing that Labour will win, and others that the SNP will win. The proportional representation by which MSPs are elected is not supposed to return a majority government – it happened only once, unusually, with the SNP under Alex Salmond in 2011. Labour won most seats and most votes in 1999 and 2003 but no overall majority. In 2021 the SNP was one short of a majority (there are 129 seats so the majority is 65). In an effort to do business more easily, then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, entered into the Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens and Lorna Slater and Patrick Harvie, the co-conveners of the party became government ministers. Now that there is one year before the election Lorna Slater said that her party offers the 'real, hopeful' and 'transformative' change that Scotland needs. We met with Ms Slater on the day when the programme for government was about to be announced by John Swinney the First Minister. She did not believe it would bring many changes, but was proved wrong on one policy – the scrapping of peak rail fares. However the Scottish Greens later responded to the announcement to say that while very welcome and a 'huge win for commuters and climate' the policy change amounted to a U-turn by the government. They also pointed out that this policy was 'initially secured by the Scottish Greens through budget negotiations in 2023 before it was then dropped by the SNP who said the numbers did not stack up to allow them to continue supporting it'. Ahead of the Programme for Government Ms Slater – who hopes to be selected to stand as Green candidate next year, and who hopes to continue as co-leader after an internal election in the summer, said: 'I don't think there'll be any new news. I think it will absolutely be a holding pattern. They don't have a plan for bringing down people's bills, because that would involve having an ambitious heat and buildings bill to insulate homes and improve the grant system and really roll out that programme. 'I think that they're going to kind of curl in on themselves and be unambitious because they're worried about doing anything ambitious before an election.' Out of government Asked if she misses being in government Ms Slater said: 'I really miss the ambitious positive energy we have because we had some really good, ambitious things going, and all the bills that have come out since we've been in government without our influence have been gutted. 'Natural Environment Bill, gutted, heat in buildings Bill, gutted, rent controls watered down. And it just goes to show that with the Greens in there, we were much more ambitious on taking practical action on climate, much more ambitious on tackling landlords, tackling polluting corporations, tackling the vested interests – and the SNP have a lot less interest in that. They have much more interest in keeping things as they are, sort of steadying the ship instead of making big change. And the Greens were about making that big change.' As to the fallout from Scotland's deposit return scheme which has landed the government in court, being sued by Biffa for their expenses getting ready for legislation which did not materialise, she is matter of fact. She said: 'The legislation for that was, of course, passed before I was elected. So in 2020 Scottish Parliament agreed that Scotland would have a deposit return scheme. So that already existed before I was in post, my role was to work with industry to implement that scheme. And that I did, we were weeks away from launching the scheme. 'We had nearly all the producers in Scotland lined up. I think it was 95% of the items that were on shelves in Scotland. The producers of those items had paid their money. They were part of the scheme and we had a workable scheme. It would absolutely have launched on time. It would have had maybe a bit of a rocky start, a bit of a phasing in period, but we absolutely would have launched on time. 'But then because Alister Jack (then Secretary of State for Scotland) interfered with it from February 2023 by putting doubts in the media, (and that was despite the fact that he had stood on Boris Johnson's manifesto to implement a deposit return scheme with with glass), he was able to use the internal market act to veto the scheme. 'Alister Jack never gave any justification or basis for that interference. We asked repeatedly why he didn't want glass in the scheme. He never produced any evidence for that. So that was purely political interference in terms of the scheme itself.' At the time in April 2023 the Scottish Greens called for an investigation into the comments Mr Jack made, saying he had misled the House of Commons. Ms Slater said that this particular interference shows how the Internal Market Act has been used to 'stifle devolution'. She said: ' The deposit return scheme was a fully devolved matter, protecting the environment, recycling schemes – all fully devolved. That the internal market act can be used to undermine Scotland's ambitions and to harm Scottish businesses is a shocking state of affairs.' Under the still relatively new UK government administration she still holds the view that devolution is under threat. She said: 'It's an interesting question about how the Labour government is going to treat this. I have noted of course, that Wales is being allowed to continue forward with a deposit return scheme that has glass in it, even though that does interfere with the Internal market act. So why can't Scotland? Why does Wales get a free pass, and Scotland doesn't. So it isn't clear at all that Keir Starmer is changing direction. He hasn't said he will repeal or even revise the internal market act. So the status quo remains. It depends on the goodwill of individual ministers.' One of the reasons that the Scottish Greens and the SNP made for a relatively easy marriage was over the question of independence on which they agree. Ms Slater said: 'I'm a proponent of Scottish independence, and that is the only way we can be sure to put in place plans and programs that we know won't be interfered with by the UK government.' Whether or not I am selected as a candidate, the Scottish Greens will be standing on being a proudly progressive party of Scottish independence. Other parties, Labour, SNP, have conceded that left ground are moving toward the centre. They're allowing Reform to pull them in that rightward direction. You can see that with Labour, with its anti immigration policies, with its neglect of the social security net, the betrayal of the WASPI women, betrayal of disabled people, people who need benefits to live on – sick and disabled people. 'The Scottish Greens will not betray that ground. We are solidly behind equalities. We are absolutely trans rights supporters. We are absolutely in favour of ambitious work toward net zero. We are not going to give this ground. All of these things are really important to us. Human rights are important to us. A secure social safety net. Taxing the rich to pay for it is something we will we are not shy about saying, the rich for too long, have been under taxed. Have increased their wealth enormously well the poorest suffer. We have hungry children in this country. We also have billionaires. The Scottish Greens don't think that that's right, and that's the ground that we are going to contest the election.' This then shows little change in any policy which the party has stood on before – and their numbers improved at the last election. She continued: 'We are a party of values. We are a value led party. We believe in peace, equality, sustainability and human rights. Radical local democracy. We are not going to change our values, we believe that we set out a vision for a fairer, greener, independent Scotland, and it's how effectively we can persuade people that we have the power to implement such a vision, that it is possible that the future can be brilliant. We just have to decide to make it so. Constituency As to her constituents in Lothians they tell the stories of poverty and lack of benefits that are heard all too often. Ms Slater said that at the top of people's minds is their 'quality of life, and that includes everything from being able to pay their rent, being able to find housing in Edinburgh to anti social behaviour, whether it's in Portobello or Corstorphine. And people are experiencing anti social, social behaviour in the streets, all the usual troubles that go with having an NHS and care system industry and people being able to find places for loved ones in care homes people being able to get medical procedures in a timely manner. 'All those things are, of course, what people are concerned with. We also get a reasonable amount of case work because of decisions of the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Those are decisions that are not taken it at the Scottish level, but we work with constituents who are, you know, facing exorbitant fees, deportation, uncertainty in their visa status because of paperwork problems, those are all the kind of things we can support people with.' But there is at least one small chink of light. Asked if it is easier to work with the UK Government under Labour she concedes it is 'slightly easier, yes it is slightly easier. The Conservative government was extremely hostile to Scottish interests. Some of their MPs wouldn't take, correspondence from MSPs, wouldn't help our constituents if they went through an MSP – so they had to always go through an MP. 'I think things are definitely more cooperative, but it doesn't solve the problem that so much of what we need to do we can't help people with because it has to go to London, because it's not devolved. 'And every single day we come across things, Oh, can we help with this? No, it's not devolved. If only Scotland were an independent country, we could take action these things, and that is frustrating every single day.' Lorna Slater MSP Like this: Like Related
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court lets DOGE access Social Security data for now
The court's three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - disagreed with that decision. "The Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now --before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful," Jackson wrote in a dissent joined by Sotomayor. In March, U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of Maryland said DOGE was intruding on "the personal affairs of millions of Americans" in a fishing expedition that's based on little more than suspicion." Hollander limited DOGE's access to the information while the courts assess the legality of the Trump administration's actions. The administration argued the judge overstepped, viewing DOGE staffers as the equivalent of intruders breaking into hotel rooms rather than as employees trying to modernize the agency's technology and root out waste - as DOGE officials said they intended to do. "District courts should not be able to wield the Privacy Act to substitute their own view of the government's 'needs' for that of the President and agency heads," Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court in an emergency appeal. DOGE has sought access to multiple agencies as part of its mission to hunt for wasteful spending and dramatically overhaul the federal government. Musk has falsely claimed that millions of Americans who are deceased are still receiving Social Security checks. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued the SSA after DOGE began digging into personal data. They told the Supreme Court justices they shouldn't intervene because the administration hadn't shown an emergency need to access data beyond what the district judge allowed. In addition to overseeing Social Security benefits for retirees and disabled people, the Social Security Administration helps administer programs run by other agencies, including Medicare and Medicaid. A divided federal appeals court on April 30 rejected the Trump administration's request to block the district judge's order. U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, said the government hadn't shown a need for unfettered access to the highly sensitive personal information that the American people had every reason to believe would be "fiercely protected." DOGE's mission can be largely accomplished through anonymized and redacted data, which is the usual way the agency has handled technology upgrades and fraud detection, he wrote.
Scotsman
4 hours ago
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: After by-election win Labour needs to sell message of positive change
Labour's surprise win in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election had readers talking Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Reform UK's 26 per cent vote share at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election is a warning that the populist party with a toxic ideology can make inroads in next year's Holyrood election. Political expert Sir John Curtice estimates Nigel Farage's party could come third, with 18 seats, based on recent polling (your report, 2 June). He said Reform's success is 'very bad news' for the Tories who polled just 6 per cent at the by-election. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Unfounded remarks by Farage about Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar allegedly favouring the Pakistani community were condemned as racist by all major parties in Scotland apart from the Tories, who remain toothless against a party that has overtaken them in the polls and threatens to render them obsolete. The recent resignation of Bellshill-born Reform party chairman Zia Yusuf, after its newest MP suggested the banning of the burka, is a blow to Farage. This follows Reform's controversial views on banning asylum seekers from Reform-held councils, an unworkable net zero migration policy and the recent comments against Mr Sarwar. Scottish Labour Deputy leader Jackie Ballie, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar and Davy Russell, newly elected Scottish Labour MSP for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse yesterday (Picture: Jeff) Reform has no place in Scottish democracy as it is difficult to justify any support for a party with outdated views on multiculturalism and climate change. Labour must show that Hamilton was not a blip to defeat two decades of failed SNP policies and the toxic politics of Reform. Voters are more likely to engage if there is tangible hope of positive change. Neil Anderson, Edinburgh Counting chickens? While Labour's victory in the Hamilton by-election on Thursday seemingly points to the party winning the Scottish Parliament elections next year, if I were Anas Sarwar I wouldn't be sizing up the curtains of Bute House just yet. The seat was won comfortably by the SNP in the last Scottish Parliament election in 2021 and is just the sort of seat Labour needs to win if Sarwar is to become Scotland's next First Minister. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The SNP has made little progress in restoring its fortunes following its heavy defeat in last summer's Westminster election, with polls suggesting the party's support across Scotland is still 15 points down on its tally in 2021. In the event, the fall in the party's support in Hamilton was, at 17 points, just a little higher than that. However, Labour's own tally was also down by two points on its vote in 2021, when overall the party came a disappointing third. That drop was very much in line with recent polling, which puts the party at just 19 per cent across Scotland as a whole, while the SNP has around a third of the vote. In addition, Labour is losing somewhere between one in six and one in five of its voters to Reform since last year's election. After nearly two decades in the political wilderness, there is little sign that Labour, as it currently stands, is set to regain the reins of power at Holyrood. Alex Orr, Edinburgh Real winner After all the hype by First Minister John Swinney talking up Reform and ignoring Labour it was obviously a tactic by the SNP to try and salvage a win in Hamilton. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Similarly, despite a dreadful campaign by Labour, voting SNP was simply not an option for many on the left. In comes the real winner, Reform UK, with a spectacular vote from a near nil base. Mr Swinney has unleashed a force that will do real damage in the 2026 Holyrood election. The SNP has proved itself too self-congratulatory too many times. Eighteen years of misrule cannot be rewarded by another term in office. All bets are off as to the make-up of Holyrood in 2026. The SNP is tired, Labour has yet to prove itself effective, Reform UK has the bit between its teeth and the Tories might yet recover. A year is a long time in politics. Gerald Edwards, Glasgow Swinney must go The loss of the Hamilton by-election to the risibly inept 'Scottish' Labour – a party so devoid of ideas it could barely muster a coherent manifesto – is not merely a setback. It is a catastrophe of the SNP's own making. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This was an entirely avoidable humiliation. Instead of seizing the moment – with independence support now at a formidable 54 per cent in a Norstat poll – John Swinney chose to dither. His response? A pledge to wait until 75 per cent of Scots beg for freedom before lifting a finger. When Keir Starmer declared he would block any independence referendum, Swinney's silence was deafening. Not a word of defiance, not a hint of resistance to the colonial farce of Section 30. Instead, he opted to align with Labour – a party whose sole distinction from Reform is a marginally more polished veneer of hypocrisy. Both are unionist to the core, united in their mission to siphon Scotland's wealth southward while offering nothing but condescension in return. The campaign itself was a masterclass in misdirection. Rather than rallying the independence movement with a bold vision, Swinney fixated on Reform – as if thwarting Nigel Farage's band of reactionary clowns was the defining struggle of Scottish nationalism. The result? A muddled, defensive mess that left voters uninspired and Labour undeservedly triumphant. The truth is stark: the SNP has no plan for independence. No strategy beyond grovelling to Westminster for permission to hold a vote – a humiliation masquerading as diplomacy. It is a spectacle so pitiful it verges on self-parody. Swinney must go. Not with a whimper, but with the swift, decisive exit his failures demand. The independence movement deserves leaders who grasp that freedom is seized, not negotiated – and who possess the courage to act accordingly. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Until then, the SNP's decline will continue, and Scotland's potential will remain shackled by the timid and the unimaginative. Alan Hinnrichs, Dundee Let teachers teach As a retired primary teacher who worked for 40 years in primary education, I think there is a simple solution to the 'excessive workload'. Stop expecting detailed forward plans, lesson plans and reviews of the same and let teachers teach instead of being overburdened with paperwork for the sake of accountability. The Curriculum for Excellence has a lot to answer for. It was what changed things so drastically and made teaching so much more stressful. When I began teaching in the 1970s, teachers completed a Record of Work every two weeks. This showed the work that had been completed in all the subjects taught in the primary curriculum in the previous two weeks. From there the progress that was made was clear and any teacher taking over the class (say as sickness cover) knew what was being taught. This was not as detailed as the Forward Plan which replaced it, but it was a clear record, in one slim book, of what had been achieved over the school year. Pupils' work was marked daily and preparations for next day made daily. The pupils left literate and numerate and, for the most part, behaved responsibly. Forty years later we were required to make a 'Forward Plan' for each subject for the term ahead and then assessed as to how we felt it had been achieved before writing the next Forward Plan! A daily diary of the plan for each day was also required. This was to be written up for the week so any teacher could take over. This was detailed to show subject, aims and objectives. On top of this there was, of course, the marking and noting of any problems and collecting materials for the next day's work. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the last year or so of my career we had a school inspection. The HMI 'dropped in' to observe one of my lessons and said at the end, 'That was an excellent lesson, but I'm afraid I cannot grade you on it as you didn't have a detailed lesson plan'. My reply was that I had never written a full lesson plan for any lesson since graduating from Callendar Park teacher training college. If teachers are allowed to teach without all the emphasis on accountability their workload would be greatly reduced and they could enjoy working with their pupils and seeing them love to learn, as I did at the start of my career. Barbara Wilson, Edinburgh Cringe no more I must disagree with Alexander McKay, and by extension, Billy Connolly, on the charge that the Scottish Parliament is 'pretendy' (Letters, 6 June). Far from it. Rather, it brings democracy and answerability to our doorstep. If the Scottish Parliament were pretendy, the Westminster Parliament is undoubtedly toxic. Politicians of the calibre of Mhairi Black and Stephen Flynn, disillusioned with Westminster, are seriously thinking of transferring their allegiance. Scotland struggled long and hard to achieve a Scottish Parliament in 1999, with the likes of Donald Dewar, Winnie Ewing, David Steel and Alex Salmond playing leading roles. Hopefully, Holyrood is here to stay, and grow in stature and personnel, with more and Parliamentarians choosing to be MSPs rather than MPs. Let's hear no more of the infamous 'Scottish cringe'. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh On the buses Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Andrew Clark, who expressed absolute dismay over bus lanes (Letters, 5 June), got the wrong end of the stick. Bus priority lanes are not, in the first instance, about reducing pollution, but about minimising congestion for those who are prepared to travel together. And to encourage people to do so, buses need to be able to progress reliably, especially on the main arteries. Cars have a vastly disproportionate footprint compared to buses. Bus lanes go some way towards reallocating the communal road space more fairly. Harald Tobermann, Chair, Edinburgh Bus Users Group Write to The Scotsman
