More on Nicola Sturgeon and she says the gender recognition bill will "inevitably" end up in court.

She says that as the procedure to block the bill - section 35 - has never been used by the UK government before, the bill will not automatically end up at the Supreme Court, like other bills have.

"This is something the Scottish government will have to judicially review," she says, adding that it will "vigorously defend" the legislation.

Image source, gett

Labour's shadow culture secretary Lucy Powell has said the ongoing row between the UK government and the Scottish government over the gender reform bill did not need to get to this point and has become "a constitutional bunfight".

"The [UK] government actually themselves seem to be suggesting that there was a bill they could have lived with, within side UK current equalities laws, so why have we got to this point?" Powell asked while speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

She said the UK and Scottish governments "need to get round the table so that we can protect people's rights across the UK and end these sorts of bureaucratic problems".

Speaking to the BBC, Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon says she sees no basis for the UK government's challenge to the bill.

Sturgeon accused the UK government of "choosing an issue where they think they can stoke some kind of culture war."

She said the bill "takes an existing process and makes it less inhumane, traumatising for trans people," while also not giving a trans person "a single additional right that they didn't have before this bill."

Helen Catt
Political correspondent

This is a power clash: the government in Westminster is, for the first time ever, choosing to use a legal power to "pull rank" over Scotland.

The effect is to stop something that a democratically elected government has won the votes to do, which is clearly a big deal.

It's an even bigger deal when that democratically elected government is led by a party which wants independence from Westminster.

Mr Jack will likely argue that he's had to do it because what Scotland is proposing would affect UK-wide law.

Image source, PA Media

Alister Jack's statement is imminent. But its not the section 35 order we've all been hearing about. That will happen later.

Instead, Mr Jack is expected to make the case for the government deploying the so-called "nuclear option".

The SNP are attempting to force an emergency debate, but the Speaker of the Commons would have to agree, and MPs would then have to vote approve the debate.

When the section 35 is eventually presented, it will automatically become law.

MPs or Lords will then have 40 days to table a motion – known in parliament as a "prayer" – to overturn it.

James Cook
Scotland Editor, BBC News

Political leaders in London and Edinburgh are at odds not just about the hotly debated topic of gender but over where power does and should lie.

The prime minister's official spokesman insists it only acted with regret to, in essence, veto the Holyrood legislation which would have removed medical and administrative barriers to changing sex on a birth certificate.

Downing Street argues that doing so was not a political choice but a legal necessity because the law would infringe on equality legislation which applies throughout Great Britain.

But Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has told the BBC the UK government’s decision is "a profound mistake" and "a direct attack on the institution of the Scottish Parliament."

It will, she added, "inevitably end up in court."

Jonathan Blake
BBC political correspondent

At today's lobby briefing the prime minister's official spokesman said it is "with regret we've been forced to take this unprecedented approach" to block Scottish gender recognition laws.

The government did not accept First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's claim that the Westminster veto would be the first of many, the spokesman said.

"It is significant that this is the first time we've ever had to consider using Section 35," they added.

"It is important to understand that if we did not take this action, we would not be upholding the Scotland Act, which set out that Scottish Parliament should not legislate in areas where there may be adverse effects on Great Britain-wide legislation.

"And of course, equalities are part of that."

In short, it's the part of the Scotland Act that gives the UK government the power to block bills passed by the Scottish Parliament.

Under Section 35, it can legally intervene to block any bill that it believes affect laws outside of the Scottish Parliament’s remit.

It must have “reasonable grounds” to believe that proposed legislation would have an “adverse effect on the operation of the law” in the rest of the UK.

The power has not been used up to now. Once deployed, a Section 35 order cannot be overturned by the Scottish Parliament.

But Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has said her government is likely to mount a legal challenge. This would be through a judicial review, which would assess the lawfulness of the decision.

This comes less than two months since the Scottish Parliament lost its bid in the Supreme Court to hold a second independence referendum without Westminster approval.

The Scottish Parliament's presiding officer has selected an urgent question on the constitutional situation which will be taken in the chamber this afternoon.

Labour MSP Monica Lennon will ask the Scottish government what its response is to the Secretary of State for Scotland making an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, preventing the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.

We don't know yet when this'll happen, but we'll keep you posted when it does.

Image source, PA Media

We're expecting Alister Jack to make a statement in the Commons in just under an hour's time.

Ministerial statements are scheduled to start from 12:30 GMT, but Home Secretary Suella Braverman is at the top of the list, so MPs will hear from her first.

We're not expecting Jack to enact section 35 at this stage, but we do expect him to explain the government's thinking behind it.

Stick with us and we'll tell you what we know and what it means, as soon as we can.

This constitutional row takes us into new territorypublished at 12:23 Greenwich Mean Time 17 January 2023

12:23 GMT 17 January 2023

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political correspondent

There have been plenty of constitutional rows between the Scottish and UK governments in the past, but this one takes us into new territory.

Previous disputes have seen UK ministers challenge Holyrood bills in the Court of Session, raising questions about whether MSPs have acted within their remit.

The argument in this case is a little different. It’s broadly accepted that this is a devolved matter, and thus an area where it’s ok for MSPs to make laws for Scotland – but there are concerns about whether those laws could have UK-wide consequences.

We will find out precisely what those concerns and consequences are when the Scottish Secretary makes his statement and lays the section 35 order before the Commons.

And those reasons are likely to be tested in the Court of Session in Edinburgh – because a judicial review is really the only way for the Scottish government to directly challenge the order.

Image source, PA Media

The Gender Recognition Reform Bill was passed by 86 votes to 39 in the Scottish Parliament last month, and is intended to streamline the process in Scotland for changing legal gender.

The reforms have been highly controversial, with several SNP backbenchers voting against the bill and Ash Regan quitting as community safety minister in protest.

The bill would lower the age that people can apply for a gender recognition certificate (GRC) - a legal document confirming a gender change - from 18 to 16.

It would also remove the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, with applicants only needing to have lived as their acquired gender for three months rather than two years - or six months if they are aged 16 or 17.

Trans campaigners welcomed the reforms, but critics of the plans are worried that allowing anyone to "self-identify" as a woman could impact on women's rights and access to single-sex spaces like refuges and changing rooms.

They have also said that people under 18 should not be able to make decisions about legally changing their gender.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission said that the current system provides "the correct balanced legal framework that protects everyone."

Image source, Getty Images

The UK government’s Education Secretary Gillian Keegan seems to have backtracked on comments she made earlier on Tuesday in which she seemed to agree that 16-year-olds are old enough to decide to change their gender – a view that would contrast with the UK government's stance relating to the Scottish parliament's Gender Reform Bill, external.

Asked on ITV’s Good Morning Britain about whether her view is at odds with that of the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's, Keegan said: “Not at all.”

Referring to her earlier remarks made in an interview with Sky News, she explained: "I said 'Look, you know, at 16, I was working, I was paying tax', but all 16-year-olds are different.

"So, no, I have not got a difference of opinion,” she insisted.

Labour leader Keir Starmer told the BBC on Sunday that he does not believe 16-year-olds are old enough to change their legally recognised gender.

Keegan stated that the issue is a "tricky" one that needs to be treated "very carefully, very sensitively".

"Obviously, everybody has a different view," she said.

"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.”

The UK government’s Education Secretary Gillian Keegan has said it is not possible to have “two competing” gender and equality legislations in Great Britain.

Asked about the UK government’s decision to block the Scottish parliament’s controversial gender recognition bill on BBC Breakfast, she said the new legislation needs to be looked at in relation to equality legislation that applies across Great Britain.

Keegan added that she finds it surprising that some Scottish ministers have reacted to the UK government’s move with outrage, stating that Scottish MSPs agreed to allow the UK government to have such powers over Scottish Parliament bills when devolution was brought in 25 years ago.

She said the UK government’s ability to examine and block Scottish policies was brought in “for exactly this type of scenario”.

“Everybody agreed it was a reasonable power at the time.”

James Cook
Scotland Editor, BBC News

Just last week Rishi Sunak was joking with Nicola Sturgeon about stealing the chips that came with her steak at dinner.

The prime minister was said to be on a charm offensive as he visited the Highlands for private talks with Scotland's first minister.

Now, say Ms Sturgeon's supporters, the Conservative leader's true attitude has been revealed in what she calls a "full-frontal attack" on the will of the Scottish Parliament.

Nonsense, say UK government sources, insisting robustly that they have no desire whatsoever for a constitutional clash, and that blocking the Gender Recognition Reform Bill passed at Holyrood last month by 86 votes to 39 is both essential and purely a matter of procedure.

They point to Scottish Secretary Alister Jack's stated hope of finding "a constructive way forward", respecting both devolution and the operation of Westminster legislation.

However, whatever the reason and whomever may be at fault, the fact is we do now have a clash.

Read more analysis here

Social Justice Secretary Shona Robison told the Good Morning Scotland programme the Westminster government's use of the Section 35 order to block the Gender Recognition Reform Bill was the "nuclear option".

Ms Robison argued that if it thought there was a legal basis to challenge the bill the UK government would have used a Section 33 order in the Supreme Court.

"I think using what is this nuclear option, a Section 35 never used before, I think does reveal there's no legal basis to challenge it and this is all about politics.

"And I think using one of the most marginalised groups in society as a political weapon is simply outrageous."

A survey conducted for the BBC last year suggested general sympathy towards trans people alongside uncertainty over some of the details of Scotland's gender reforms.

On every question asked in the survey, support for transgender rights was higher among younger people. Women were also generally more supportive than men.

A majority of people (57%) supported making the process to acquire a gender recognition certificate easier - but that support dropped when asked about specific proposals.

However, reducing the minimum age a person can apply for legal gender recognition from 18 to 16 was opposed by a majority of people.

It's the morning after the night before, and a new constitutional row has sprung up between Holyrood and Westminster.

The UK government has decided to block the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, external which was passed by the Scottish Parliament in December.

It's designed to make it easier for people to change their legal gender.

This is the first time a Scottish law has been blocked for affecting UK-wide law.

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has accused the government at Westminster of attacking Scottish democracy and says she will challenge any moves in the courts.

The Westminster government's Scottish Secretary, Alister Jack, is due to make a statement on this in the Commons shortly.

Stick with us.

Before we pause our live coverage of the news that the UK government is to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill, here's a reminder of the key points:

• The UK government has decided to block the controversial Scottish bill designed to make it easier for people to change their legal gender
• UK ministers say it would conflict with equality laws which apply across Great Britain
• Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon called the move a "full-frontal attack" on the Scottish Parliament and vowed to oppose it
• Ms Sturgeon earlier warned blocking the legislation would be an "outrage"
• This is the first use of a Section 35 order, which can block Scottish laws using the Scotland Act
• Scottish Secretary Alister Jack will take the legal steps on Tuesday to confirm the move
• MSPs voted to pass the Gender Recognition Bill by 86 votes to 39 in December
• The aim of the bill is to simplify and speed up the existing process by which people can obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC) to change their legally recognised gender
• The changes lower the age that people can apply for a GRC from 18 to 16
• Trans campaigners welcomed the bill, however critics of the plans are worried that allowing anyone to "self-identify" as a woman could affect women's rights

Thank you for joining us.

'At the heart of this are people'published at 20:52 Greenwich Mean Time 16 January 2023

20:52 GMT 16 January 2023

Lauren Moss
LGBT & Identity Correspondent | BBC News

Ten years ago same-sex marriage was the political front being hotly debated.

In 2023, it’s the gender recognition process that’s occupying our social media feeds and soon to continue in our political houses north and south of the border.

The intervention from the UK government marks the start of what will be a long road ahead legally, but it’s important to remember that at the heart of this are people.

Those from the transgender community who have long described the “dehumanising process” they go through to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, and those who want to be sure that single-sex spaces will be protected and not fall into a grey area with a streamlined process.

This is all happening against a backdrop of delays for transgender healthcare, delays to the bill to end conversion therapy and some international organisations criticising the UK’s stance on LGBT rights.