bill Archives - Hoang Viet

Uncategorized

Jan 23 2024

Lib Dem Lords to ignore convention and vote against Safety of Rwanda bill | Politics News

Liberal Democrat peers are poised to ignore a convention dating back to Gladstone’s day to stage a protest against the Rwanda bill in the House of Lords.

The Lib Dem group has announced that its 80 peers will vote against the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill at its second reading next Monday.

It’s a highly unusual move and won’t win support from Labour peers, who regard such tactics as a publicity stunt used by smaller parties like the Lib Dems to gain media coverage.

Politics latest:
Red Sea crisis ‘may get more tricky’

And Downing Street is urging peers “not to frustrate the will of the people”, claiming that as the Rwanda bill has the support of the Commons it should be passed by the Lords.

Traditionally, opposition parties don’t vote against government bills at second reading in the Lords, but instead move amendments at committee stage which are then voted on at report stage.

But the Liberal Democrats claim that since the Rwanda policy wasn’t in the Conservative general election manifesto, the convention supported by Labour and the Tories doesn’t apply.

Last year, the Lib Dems moved a motion to “decline” the government’s Illegal Migration Bill at its second reading in the Lords. That was rejected by 179 votes to 76 and a similar result is likely this time.

The deal between the major parties is known as the Salisbury-Addison Convention, which evolved because of big Conservative majorities in the House of Lords during Liberal and Labour governments.

Lord Salisbury was Conservative prime minister in the 1880s and 90s, before and after Liberal giant William Gladstone, and Lord Addison was Labour leader in the Lords after Clement Attlee’s 1945 general election landslide.

But a government defeat in the Lords this week, on a motion to delay ratifying the Rwanda treaty until safeguards have been implemented, has emboldened the Lib Dems to defy the convention again.

In a defeat that spells trouble for Rishi Sunak, peers voted by 214 votes to 171, a hefty majority of 43, in favour of calls for protections to be introduced before deportation flights can take off for Rwanda.

Read more:
Rwanda plan suffers first defeat in House of Lords
Path to plan success harder after symbolic Lords defeat
What is the plan and why is it controversial?
How policy became a leadership issue for Sunak

Revealing the Lib Dems’ intention to vote against the bill, a spokesperson told Sky News: “From the beginning, Liberal Democrats have been clear: We have no faith in the Conservatives’ failing Rwanda scheme.

“It’s totally unworkable and extortionately expensive for the taxpayer. Of course, we all want to stop boat crossings in the channel, but this policy will do nothing of the sort.

“So much time and money has already been wasted, with nothing to show for it. Instead, we want a long-term sustainable solution, which must include an efficient processing system to clear the asylum backlog, and safe and legal routes for refugees.

“We have opposed the bill every step of the way, voting against it at every stage in the Commons. It should be no surprise that our strategy will be the same in the Lords.”

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

A party source added: “The Rwanda bill is not a manifesto bill. We wouldn’t be voting against it if was in a manifesto. And the convention was a pact between the Tories and Labour. We’re not formally a party to it.

“We voted against the Illegal Migration Bill at second reading and we feel the same way about the Rwanda bill. Since the Lords voted against the treaty this week it makes logical sense to vote against the bill as well.”

But a Labour source told Sky News: “No. We’re not backing it. Why would we stop abiding by our long-term commitment to the Salisbury-Addison convention?

“The whole thing of trying to stop a second reading is obviously a way of a smaller party getting some coverage for something that won’t happen.”

Reacting to the defeat on the Rwanda treaty and looking ahead to the bill’s second reading, a Number 10 Downing Street source told Sky News: “It’s disappointing, but Labour are once again voting against our plans to stop the boats.

“We urge the Lords not to frustrate the will of the people.

“This is the toughest legislation ever introduced in Parliament to tackle illegal migration and makes clear that if you come here illegally you will not be able to stay.

“The bill has the support of the Commons, it is now in the House of Lords. We need to get this through to ensure we get flights off to Rwanda, deter people from making perilous journeys across the Channel and stop the boats.”

admin 0 Comments

Uncategorized

Jan 16 2024

Tory deputy chairmen Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith resign after backing Rwanda bill amendments | Politics News

Two deputy chairs of the Conservative Party have resigned from their roles after they both supported rebel amendments to Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill.

Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith both said they would support proposed changes designed to toughen up Mr Sunak’s bill, which seeks to declare Rwanda a safe country to deport asylum seekers to.

Politics latest – follow live

Jane Stevenson, a parliamentary private secretary (PPS) in the Department for Business and Trade, also said she would support rebel amendments to the Rwanda Bill.

On Tuesday night MPs voted on a series of amendments to the bill, including one submitted by veteran Tory MP Sir Bill Cash, whose amendment sought to disapply international law with regards to Rwanda being a safe country

In total 70 rebels backed the amendment.

However, the amendment still passed by 529 votes to 68, leaving a majority of 461.

In a joint resignation letter, Mr Anderson and Mr Clarke-Smith said they supported the amendments “not because we are against the legislation, but because like everybody else we want it to work”.

“This task is not an easy one and we appreciate the fine balance that must be struck,” they added.

“As two people who have been on very different political journeys, one as a person who followed the same path many voters did for the first time at the last general election and another who has been a lifelong Conservative Party supporter, it has been a huge honour for both of us to serve as deputy chairmen of the party.

“Our support for the party and this government remains as strong as ever and that is why we are so passionate about making this legislation work.

“However, we fully appreciate that with such important roles there is also the issue of being bound by collective responsibility.

“It is with this in mind that we fully appreciate that whilst our main wish is to strengthen the legislation, this means that in order to vote for amendments we will therefore need to offer you our resignations from our roles.”

On Monday night, Mr Anderson and Mr Clarke-Smith confirmed they would back rebel amendments to the bill, paving the way for them to resign or be sacked.

Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesperson Alistair Carmichael MP said: “Sunak’s Rwanda scheme just won’t work – and even the deputy chairmen of his own party know it.

“Rishi Sunak has yet again been embarrassed by his own MPs.

“If the prime minister can’t even settle squabbles in his own party, how can he be expected to run the country?”

admin 0 Comments

Uncategorized

Jan 16 2024

Robert Jenrick ‘prepared’ to vote down Rwanda bill as Tory divide deepens | Politics News

Robert Jenrick says he is “prepared” to vote against the Rwanda bill if the government does not adopt “robust” changes to the proposed legislation.

The proposed law is heading back to the Commons for two days of debate this afternoon, with the aim of deterring asylum seekers from coming to the UK via small boat crossings.

Rishi Sunak has said the new bill, which includes clauses to define Rwanda as a “safe country” and reduces the ability for people to appeal, answers the concerns of the the UK Supreme Court – which ruled the plan unlawful – while also ensuring deportations will take place.

But many on the right of the party – including Mr Jenrick, who resigned as immigration minister over the issue – want the prime minister to toughen up the legislation with a raft of amendments, including one that would block injunctions on flights taking off.

Make this move, however, and Mr Sunak risks upsetting the centrist wing of his party, with the One Nation faction already concerned the bill goes too far from the UK’s international obligations.

Politics live:
Johnson tells PM to accept rebel amendments

Speaking to Sky News’s political editor Beth Rigby, Mr Jenrick said he did not want to get to the “situation” where he would have to rebel against the government, but added: “I am prepared to vote against the bill… because this bill doesn’t work, and I do believe that a better bill is possible.

“So the government has a choice. It can either accept my amendments… or it can bring back a new and improved bill, and it could do that within a matter of days because we know the shape of that bill.”

He added: “The opportunity here is immense. Let’s not waste it by creating a scheme that is like a bucket riddled with holes.”

Jenrick: ‘Tens of thousands more’ will come if bill not ‘fixed’

The former immigration minister said he “didn’t accept” that if the bill failed in the Commons, Mr Sunak’s premiership would be in crisis – despite two deputy Tory chairmen now risking the sack to vote for the rebel amendments.

“This isn’t about the prime minister or his leadership of the Conservative Party,” Mr Jenrick said. “This is about fixing one of the biggest problems facing not just this country, but countries all over the world.

“And as I’ve set out in great detail since I resigned on principle last month, if we don’t fix this problem, we’ll see tens of thousands more people coming to our country.

“I don’t want to see the bill either fail or proceed in its current state. Neither is a satisfactory outcome. But I do know that a better bill is possible and the ball is in the government’s court here.”

He added: “The point is that there’s no point having a moment of unity in passing a bill that doesn’t work – that’s an illusion.

“What matters is whether it works. And if we’re celebrating this week, but in August there are still thousands of people coming across in small boats, no one will remember the events of this week.”

Govt ‘risks clogging up the courts’

Sky News understands the government still doesn’t plan to accept any of the amendments from right-wing MPs.

However, shortly before the debate was set to begin – and in an attempt to appease rebels – Justice Secretary Alex Chalk confirmed 25 hearing rooms had been prepared and more than 100 additional staff had been recruited to help speed up appeals and deportations.

But Mr Jenrick said: “Adding more judges into the mix simply accepts my central argument that there will be an absolute cascade of individual claims from migrants as they arrive into the country and [that] will clog up the courts.

“It will delay things and the scheme will become completely inoperable.”

The former minister also rejected the government’s argument that any strengthening of the law would lead to the Rwandan government pulling out of the scheme altogether, rather than risk being linked with breaches of international law.

“It is quite an implausible suggestion from the government, which was raised at the 11th hour,” he said.

“I think it’s a highly convenient argument… you weren’t born yesterday, neither was I. I don’t think that is going to wash with parliamentary colleagues.”

Mr Jenrick continued: “All we care about is what works. It is absolutely critical for the country not to talk about the government, but to actually get the Rwanda scheme up and running.

“Illegal migration is doing untold damage to our country. I won’t allow that to continue.

“I said, as did the prime minister, that we would do whatever it takes. And the bill before parliament this week is not that.

“That is why we need to amend it, to toughen it and to ensure those flights do truly get off to Rwanda.”

admin 0 Comments

Uncategorized

Jan 13 2024

Post Office could face £100m bill and insolvency over Horizon compensation tax relief, expert claims | UK News

The Post Office could be facing a £100m bill and insolvency after claiming tax relief for its compensation payments to sub-postmasters, a tax expert has claimed.

Dan Neidle, the head of non-profit organisation Tax Policy Associates, said the Post Office claimed £934m tax relief for its compensation payments, and suggested it could be “unlawful”.

The Horizon scandal saw more than 700 sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses handed criminal convictions after faulty Fujitsu accounting software made it appear as though money was missing at their branches.

Read More:
Civil servants accuse ex-ministers of ‘cowardly’ blame game over Post Office scandal
Who are the key figures in Post Office IT scandal?

Mr Neidle posted on X saying: “The Post Office claimed £934m tax relief for its compensation payments to the postmasters it persecuted. That’s outrageous. It’s also unlawful – so the Post Office now faces an unexpected £100m tax bill. It may be insolvent.

“Our team of eminent tax and accounting experts reviewed the Post Office’s accounts for the last ten years in detail and one issue stood out: it has treated the compensation it pays to postmasters as tax deductible. That is not correct.

“A source at the Post Office has confirmed to us that HMRC is investigating this and asserting that the Post Office owes tax – in our view they are right to do so.”

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

HMRC would not confirm or deny investigations and said it would not comment on identifiable taxpayers.

A Post Office spokesperson said: “The disclosed information on taxation in Post Office’s Annual Report and Accounts for 2022/23, published on 20 December 2023, is appropriate and accurate.

“We have regular conversations with government who are our sole shareholder and our correspondence in respect of this issue was about ensuring that the tax treatment of funding we receive from government to pay compensation was treated in the same way as other government funding that we receive.”

Days after the ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office aired, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that the wrongly prosecuted in England and Wales could have their names cleared by the end of the year under blanket legislation to be introduced within weeks.

admin 0 Comments

Uncategorized

May 17 2023

Household energy suppliers face £8m bill for ‘compensation failures’ | Business News

Three household gas and electricity firms have paid £8m for delays in producing final bills when customers switch suppliers.

Industry regulator Ofgem said more than 100,000 households were affected by failures at E.On Next, Good Energy and Octopus Energy.

It determined that the three firms either missed or delayed compensation payouts that were due when they did not provide a final bill within six weeks, as required when a customer switches to another provider.

Under rules brought in three years ago, customers are entitled to a £30 payment each if a final bill is not produced in six weeks, with a further £30 due if the compensation is not provided within another 10 working days.

Ofgem said the three firms either missed or delayed compensation payments worth £6.3m, with E.On Next accounting for the vast majority of that sum.

Some of the affected households had to wait over a year to receive redress, it found.

The watchdog said they had collectively paid an extra £1.7m to customers or the energy industry voluntary redress scheme (EIVRS), which supports vulnerable households.

The failures were highlighted at a time when families continue to grapple high gas and electricity bills – mostly a consequence of the surge in wholesale costs associated with the war in Ukraine.

Government support for bills is due to end in June as seasonal demand falls, with the energy price cap also tipped to fall back from the following month though still remaining above an annual average of £2,000.

Switching suppliers, a move that was actively encouraged before the cost of living crisis emerged, has largely dried up now that the vast majority of households are off fixed-rate deals.

Competition for customers would be expected to pick up in the event of a stabilisation in the wholesale market.

Experts have suggested, however, a risk that pricing becomes frantic again Europe-wide in the run-up to next winter due to a continuing reliance on natural gas.

Read more from business:
Car-making giant wants renegotiation of Brexit deal
Almost 11m people struggling to keep up with their bills

Neil Kenward, director for strategy at Ofgem, said of its switching compensation regime: “Ofgem introduced these standards to make sure customers get the service they deserve when switching energy supplier.

“Our rules mean that where energy companies drag their heels, customers are automatically compensated.

“We won’t hesitate to hold energy companies to account, as we have done today.

“As the energy market starts to recover, we’ll likely see a return to more switching, and this action is a reminder to suppliers that they need to make switching as easy and convenient as possible for their customers, and where they cause undue delay, pay compensation swiftly.”

admin 0 Comments

Uncategorized

May 10 2023

Illegal Migration Bill has ‘too many problems for one speech’ – Archbishop of Canterbury | Politics News

The Archbishop of Canterbury has launched stinging criticisms of the government’s Illegal Migration Bill – saying it has “too many problems for one speech”.

Archbishop Justin Welby was speaking as the House of Lords begins debating the legislation, which the government wants to use to prevent people arriving in the UK by non-traditional means from claiming asylum.

The Archbishop added he does not think the bill will even “temporarily stop the boats”, and that it does not take into account global factors.

Read more:
PMQs and migration debate live

“It is isolationist, it is morally unacceptable and politically impractical to let the poorest countries deal with the crisis alone and cut our international aid,” he added.

The bill also looks to limit the ability of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to prevent the deportation of asylum seekers.

The archbishop was not the only member of the House of Lords to criticise the bill, with Labour and Liberal Democrat peers also voicing strong opposition.

But there was support from Lord Howard, the former Tory Party leader. Close to 100 peers were scheduled to speak with around six minutes allowed per person.

Among the criticisms was the government’s attitude to international conventions and agreements – including the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Archbishop Welby said: “The existing global convention and agreements need updating in response to the crises we face today.

“While now inadequate, what those conventions offer is a baseline from which to build a globally shared understanding of what protection must be given to refugees.

“They are not inconvenient obstructions to get round by any legislative means necessary.”

admin 0 Comments

Uncategorized

Apr 30 2023

Liz Truss contests ‘£12,000’ bill relating to her use of grace-and-favour home | Politics News

Liz Truss is disputing a bill she has been asked to pay relating to a country house which she had use of as foreign secretary.

The bill is reportedly for £12,000 but the former prime minister’s spokesman claims the actual figure is lower.

The invoice, first reported in The Mail on Sunday, covers the period in August 2022 when she used Chevening House in Kent, during the time she was running to be Conservative leader before being elected to No 10 the following month.

Ms Truss claims most of the invoice relates to using the grace-and-favour home for government business and she maintains she should not be liable for the majority of it.

The official business included meetings with cabinet secretary Simon Case when they were planning a transition to a Truss government.

If she did pay, there would have been a breach of civil service protocol because civil servants are not allowed to accept hospitality from a political candidate, her team argues.

Ms Truss has asked for this part to be billed separately.

She will pay for personal costs relating to guests. The bill reportedly includes missing items including bathrobes, which she is happy to replace.

A spokesman for Ms Truss said: “Liz always paid for the costs of her personal guests at Chevening.

“The latest invoice contains a mixture of costs for her personally and costs for official government business with civil servants including Simon Case and senior officials from other departments who met at Chevening during the transition preparations.

“The latter constitutes the majority of the bill. It would be inappropriate for her to pay the costs for officials as it would have breached the civil service code for civil servants to accept hospitality during the leadership campaign.

“She has therefore asked for this to be billed separately.”

Chevening House, which has 115 rooms and is Grade 1 listed, was left to the nation by the 7th Earl Stanhope after he died in 1967.

Since then, the prime minister of the day has decided who uses it, with that person usually being the foreign secretary.

Ms Truss was the shortest-serving prime minister in UK history, resigning last October, just 44 days after taking over from Boris Johnson.

It came after her tax-cutting mini-budget spooked financial markets.

She has said she was never given a “realistic chance” to implement her radical tax-cutting agenda and blamed what she called a “powerful economic establishment” for removing her from Downing Street.

admin 0 Comments

Uncategorized

Mar 28 2023

Rishi Sunak defends detention of children in new Illegal Migration Bill | Politics News

Rishi Sunak has defended plans to detain child migrants as part of his new immigration bill, claiming excluding them from the legislation would “incentivise” criminal gangs to bring them to the UK in small boats.

The Illegal Migration Bill is currently being debated in the Commons, and includes measures to “detain and swiftly remove” migrants and asylum seekers who enter the country illegally via the dangerous Channel crossings, cutting the options to challenge or appeal deportation.

This would include families with children, and while those under 18 will be able to lodge an appeal, they may be deported once they reach adulthood.

Politics Live: Sunak defends home secretary’s use of term ‘invasion’

The prime minister was pressed on the policy during a grilling by the Commons Liaison Committee, with Tory MP Caroline Nokes questioning why children were not exempt from the law for their protection.

Mr Sunak told the group of committee chairs: “The intention of this policy is not to detain children, but it’s important that we don’t inadvertently create a policy that incentivises people to bring children who wouldn’t otherwise come here.

“Otherwise you create an incentive for a criminal gang to bring a child with them when they otherwise wouldn’t be, and I don’t think that is a good thing.

“We don’t want to create a pull factor to make it more likely that children are making this very perilous journey in conditions that are appalling.”

The PM said children would not be separated from their families and when detained, they would be housed together in “appropriate” facilities.

And he insisted he and the government took the welfare of children “incredibly seriously”, saying: “A lot of thought [had] gone into getting [the bill] right.”

Mr Sunak added: “I think we’ve got a policy that does what we need it to do, which is treat people with decency, treats people humanely, safeguards children’s welfare, but also achieve the objectives that we’re trying to achieve, which is to break the cycle of these criminal gangs and stop people coming here who should have been coming here.”

As the PM faced almost two hours of questioning by the committee, MPs continued to debate the bill for a second day in the Commons, where the detention of migrant children was raised again.

Liberal Democrat Alistair Carmichael said he would try to get the measure “excised” from the bill”, saying it was is “so fundamentally removed from the way we would tolerate the treatment of our own children”.

Immigration minister Robert Jenrick defended the policy, saying: “It is undoubtedly true that we face a serious situation today where the number of unaccompanied minors coming into the country over the channel has increased fourfold since 2019.

“That places a great strain on our system and we need ways to ensure that where those people are being age-assessed and may ultimately be decided not to be minors, that they are held in appropriate detained accommodation.”

But Mr Carmichael chastised the minister for his remarks, saying: “Can I just say to him, I hope that tomorrow he gets a hold of Hansard, reads what he has just said and, as my mother used to say to me, takes a long, hard look at himself.

“The idea that that is a justification for locking up children is absolutely disgraceful. For him to try to draw and to invent a causal link where none exists, again, is a consistent line of the way this government acts.”

admin 0 Comments

Uncategorized

Mar 9 2023

EU warns UK immigration bill ‘violates international law’ as minister says ‘thousands’ of refugees could be sent to Rwanda | Politics News

Immigration minister Robert Jenrick has suggested “thousands” of refugees could be sent to Rwanda under the government’s new plan to stop Channel crossings – despite no-one having been deported there since the beginning of the scheme last April

The Conservative MP told Sky News’ The Take with Sophy Ridge that the partnership with the east African nation is “uncapped” and “they are willing to take as many people as is required”.

The comments came as the EU joined the international backlash against the controversial Illegal Immigration Bill.

In an interview with Politico, European Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson said she had spoken to Home Secretary Suella Braverman on Tuesday “and I told her that I think that this is violating international law”.

The intervention risks reigniting hostilities with the EU as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak prepares to meet with his French counterpart to discuss his crackdown on asylum seekers.

The new legislation proposed by the government means refugees arriving on small boats in the UK will be detained and deported “within weeks” – either to their own country if it is safe or a third nation if it is not.

Charities, the UN and human rights groups have claimed the proposals aren’t legal while questions have also swirled about how it will work in practice.

While the government has return agreements with certain countries like Albania, it was put to Mr Jenrick that 4,500 people who arrived by small boat last year were from war-torn Syria “and you are not just going to pick up the phone to Assad are you?”.

He told Sky’s The Take with Sophy Ridge: “That’s the reason why we need safe third countries like Rwanda, and we want to get that arrangement up and running as soon as possible.”

The controversial deportation policy has been grounded by the courts since it was announced by former home secretary Priti Pratel last April

The government previously said the scheme will have an initial capacity for 200 people but Mr Jenrick insisted it will be “an unlimited arrangement” once flights take off.

“The scheme with Rwanda is uncapped so the Rwandan government, and we have spoken to them again this week, Rishi Sunak spoke to Paul Kagame, his opposite number, they are willing to take as many people as is required,” he said.

Mr Jenrick refused to put an estimate on how many people the government thinks it will need to send to the east African nation saying “it depends how many people are crossing the Channel at that time”.

But he added: “If it requires thousands of people to be sent to Rwanda, then we will send thousands of people to Rwanda”.

Earlier, Home Secretary Suella Braverman told Sky News small boat crossings will “fall dramatically” under her asylum plans but could not say when removals will begin.

She said the government will be “expanding our detention capacity to meet the need very soon” but said “I’m not going to give precise dates” because “we’ve got logistical challenges that we’re always overcoming”.

The cabinet minister also insisted the plans are legal, despite acknowledging they may not be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Mr Sunak has acknowledged the legislation may come up against challenges in the courts but insisted his is “up for the fight”, branding critics like Sir Keir Starmer “leftie lawyers”.

The prime minister is due to meet French President Emmanuel Macron on Friday, where he is expected to be asked to boost payments to Paris stop small boat journeys.

Read more:
Is the Illegal Migration Bill legal?
Braverman accused of ‘cowardly attack’ on civil servants after letter blames them for inaction on small boat crossings

Mr Jenrick did not rule out additional funding, saying the government wants to increase the number of French patrols of the Channel and improve intelligence sharing.

He said: “What we are seeking to achieve is a number of things, one of which is more police officers on the beaches and the hinterland in northern France so that we can intercept as many of these boats as possible.

“We also want our intelligence services to be cooperating and working together in real time so that when we learn about what the criminal gangs are doing, we get that information to our French counterparts and they take action.”

admin 0 Comments

Uncategorized

Jan 17 2023

Why is Scotland’s gender recognition reform bill controversial? | Politics News

Scotland’s gender recognition bill has caused constitutional friction with Westminster – but the content of the bill is also causing consternation.

The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed by the Scottish parliament in December but in January, the government in Westminster announced it was blocking the bill from Royal Assent, the final stage of any new bill.

It is the first time Westminster has used the power since devolution nearly 25 years ago.

Minister addresses MPs after blocking gender reform bill – live politics updates

The bill means the age someone can legally change their gender in Scotland would be lowered to 16 from 18, there would no longer be a need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and someone would only have to live in their acquired gender for three months – reduced from two years.

Westminster is objecting to the bill on the grounds that it would have a “significant impact” on equalities matters in Scotland, England and Wales.

Ministers have insisted it is not the content of the bill they have an issue with, as they are “very supportive” of helping people transition, but how it will divide Scotland from the rest of the UK, claiming it goes against the Equality Act – which is ruled by Westminster not devolved nations.

But First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said the government’s move to block the bill is an affront to democracy.

While the government has said it is the differences the bill will cause between Scotland and the rest of the UK, the contents of the bill have been behind all their arguments before this.

What are the concerns about the bill’s contents?

Ministers fear the changes put forward by Scotland may lead to gender tourism, where people could get a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in Scotland then demand the same rights in England or Wales.

There is also a worry that people who change gender in Scotland would have a different legal gender when they are in the rest of the UK.

Under the legislation, anyone born in Scotland or who lives there would be able to apply for a Scottish GRC.

A copy is then emailed to the relevant office, the National Records of Scotland, which then issues a new birth certificate showing the person’s new gender, without revealing they have changed gender.

Critics have raised concerns predatory men could obtain a GRC in Scotland in order to gain access to single-sex spaces and place women in jeopardy, and those spaces would have to adopt different policies.

The UN’s special rapporteur on violence against women and girls said the reforms could allow violent males to “abuse” the system.

Author and women’s rights campaigner JK Rowling, said: “All a man needs to become a woman is to say he’s one.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission warned there could be an impact on sex discrimination laws across the UK, including equal pay and entitlements to benefits and pensions.

When Scotland passed the bill in December, Scotland Secretary Alister Jack said: “We share the concerns that many people have regarding certain aspects of this bill, and in particular the safety issues for women and children.”

What have those in support of the bill been saying?

In Scotland, MSPs debated for two long days and the SNP experienced its biggest backbench rebellion before the bill was eventually passed by 86 votes to 39.

Those in favour of the bill argued it would introduce a “simpler and fairer way for trans men and women to be legally recognised as who they truly are, allowing them to live with the dignity we all deserve”.

Ms Sturgeon argued there was a need to remove an intrusive medical diagnosis and streamline the process for obtaining a GRC.

She also said the bill would not change women’s protections under the Equality Act, agreeing to an amendment meaning anyone subject to a sexual harm prevention order or sexual offences prevention order will not be allowed to obtain a GRC.

The first minister also said the bill would not give predatory men more access to women.

LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall said the bill makes the process for legally recognising a trans person’s gender “more respectful and straightforward”.

The bill, the charity said, aligns Scotland with “leading international practice endorsed by the United Nations and adopted by 30 countries, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and most of the United States of America”.

It also denied the bill clashes with the Equality Act and accused the government of allowing trans people’s lives to be used as a political football.

admin 0 Comments

Hoang Viet

Hoang Viet

Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge

More on Post Office Scandal

More on Archbishop Of Canterbury