Swinney: Scots public bodies 'should wait for guidance' before single sex space change
Public bodies should wait for full guidance from the UK's equality watchdog before making changes to policy on single sex spaces, Scotland's First Minister has said. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued interim guidance on Friday in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling that sex in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. The body is expected to provide full guidance in the coming months on the implication of the ruling, but its release on Friday said trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use women's facilities in areas such as hospitals, shops and restaurants. But speaking at the STUC Congress in Dundee , John Swinney said public bodies should wait until the full guidance is issued by the EHCR before implementing changes. "Public bodies have got to be mindful of the legal framework in which they operate and they've got to take into account the formal guidance that comes from the EHRC , which has been subject to consultation and ministerial approval and that's essentially what we wait for," he said. " I think organisations want to have legal certainty and they can only get legal certainty from the formal guidance that comes from the EHRC." Mr Swinney's comments come as he - along with his predecessor Nicola Sturgeon and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer - was urged to apologise by one of his own MSPs. Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland on Monday morning, Michelle Thomson said: "In reality, let's be clear: Keir Starmer should also be apologising, Nicola Sturgeon should also be apologising because people expect government to make clear policies that can be translated into law, and this has been quite a mess for some time, and has only been cleared up as a result of the ruling by the Supreme Court." Asked to respond to her comments, the First Minister said he had addressed calls for him to apologise last week. The ruling has come in for criticism from some, with Green MSP Maggie Chapman hitting out at the Supreme Court, accusing judges of "bigotry, prejudice and hatred". Ms Chapman faces a vote on Tuesday on Holyrood's Equalities and Human Rights Committee - on which she is the deputy convener - in an effort by the Scottish Tories to oust her. Asked how the three SNP MSPs on the committee will vote on the issue, the First Minister said he was not aware, adding: "It would be wrong for me to intervene in the work of a committee by instructing them to do anything."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
33 minutes ago
- The National
Labour holds same contempt and arrogance towards Scotland as Tories
THE pattern is now clear and established. Keir Starmer's promised "reset" of the relationship between Westminster and Holyrood meant resetting it to the same old contempt and high-handed arrogance which we witnessed under the previous Conservative administration. When Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced that she was going to axe the universal winter fuel payment for pensioners, the Scottish Government was reportedly given a mere 40 minutes' notice despite the fact that control of the equivalent benefit in Scotland is devolved to Holyrood. Holyrood was given little notice of the swingeing benefits cuts which Labour announced in March, even though some of the benefits affected in England and Wales are devolved in Scotland and the benefits cuts will entail a reduction in the annual block grant which forms the backbone of the Scottish budget. This week, the Labour government announced a U-turn on its massively unpopular axing of the winter fuel payment. The UK Government has so far failed to inform the Scottish Government how much extra the Scottish Government will receive as a result of this U-turn. Yet again, there has been no consultation with the Scottish Government on a critical issue affecting thousands in Scotland. READ MORE: Labour MSP Davy Russell sworn in to Scottish Parliament after by-election win Speaking on BBC Scotland's Good Morning Scotland this morning, Governor General Ian Murray first tried to insist that Scottish pensioners will now receive less than their counterparts in England and Wales as a result of Labour's U-turn, a Unionist talking point which had been calmly debunked by Scottish Secretary for Social Justice Shirley-Anne Somerville on the same programme just minutes before. Murray then fell apart when asked how much extra funding the Scottish Government will get after Labour's winter fuel U-turn. He didn't know and ended up rambling on about NHS waiting lists as a distraction. If the Scottish Secretary, the man supposedly Scotland's voice in the UK Government cabinet, doesn't know what the financial implications of this U-turn are for the Scottish budget, then how exactly is the Scottish Government supposed to know? (Image: PA) In yet another instance of Scotland being marginalised and ignored by a Westminster government which continually assures us that it has Scotland's interests at heart, the SNP has pointed out that since taking office, this Labour government has committed £36 billion to energy projects in England since taking power last year but Scotland has scarcely registered at all, with the telling exception of the £3.4 billion electrical interconnection projects which will see two new high capacity electrical cables run from Scotland to England, one on the west coast and one on the east. This project is not about energy production, it is rather a means to facilitate the export of cheap Scottish energy to consumers in England. It's a project which some view as a form of colonialist resource extraction. As the BBC coyly put it in its report announcing the construction of the cables: "Although the link can carry electricity in both directions, the majority is expected to flow out of Scotland." That's like describing the British Museum as a benefit to Athens and the Parthenon. These are the only kinds of energy projects which the UK Government is willing to fund in Scotland. It's almost as though they expect Scotland to become independent and are determined to grab what they can before we go. (Image: PA) This week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a £14.2 billion UK Government investment in the Sizewell C nuclear power station in Sussex. The nuclear plant is expected to take between nine and 12 years to build and cost around £20bn, according to initial estimates from 2020. However, in January, The Financial Times reported that the true cost of the reactor is expected to exceed £40 billion, and will not be ready until 2031 at the most optimistic date. When construction began on the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in Somerset in 2017, it was expected to go on stream this year, but the project has been plagued by delays and cost overruns. The plant is now expected to be ready between 2029 to 2031 and is forecast to cost £41.6–47.9 billion rather than the original price tag of £18 billion when the project was commissioned. Meanwhile, the UK Government has still not spent any of the £200 million it promised to invest in Grangemouth, while GB Energy's budget has been repeatedly cut. The SNP opposes nuclear power in Scotland, and the party's energy spokesperson at Westminster Dave Doogan, accused the UK Government of pouring money into 'white elephants'. (Image: House of Commons) He said the Labour government was 'treating Scotland as an afterthought because of its prioritisation of English industries with a litany of investments made south of the Border over Scotland'. The SNP added: 'In total, since coming to office last year, the Labour Party has now committed £36bn to nuclear and carbon capture projects in England, whilst the Acorn Project has been forced to live with Labour's warm words, but not a penny of commitment.' Doogan said: 'Yet more billions has been committed to English nuclear projects, yet we have no investment in the Acorn Carbon Capture project, Grangemouth has been shut down and Westminster's fiscal regime has ruined North-East energy jobs – Scotland isn't just an afterthought, it's barely a thought at all. 'The evidence is clear that nuclear is extortionate, takes decades to build and the toxic waste is a risk to local communities – Scotland's future is in renewables, carbon capture and links to Europe, not more money for white elephants. 'It is absurd that energy rich Scotland is home to fuel poor Scots and that while energy bills go up, Scottish energy jobs are going down – that's directly as a consequence of Westminster policy and the further squandering of cash on expensive nuclear won't change that. 'Only the SNP firmly believe money from Scotland's natural resources should benefit Scotland's people – something that's an alien concept to Scottish Labour MPs who cheer on investment in England at the expense of Scottish industry.'
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
UK officials hopeful that US will start lifting car tariffs this week
UK officials are hopeful the US will begin lifting tariffs on British cars as soon as this week after the British trade secretary meets his US counterpart in London. Jonathan Reynolds is due to meet Howard Lutnick, the US commerce secretary, on Tuesday evening to discuss the deal to lower US tariffs on cars, steel and aluminium. Downing Street is hopeful that the implementation of the deal will begin this week, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions. The aim is to secure a proclamation from Donald Trump this week that would kickstart its implementation, a government official with knowledge of the process said. The US commerce department would then be tasked with enforcing the tariff reductions on UK goods. Officials expect tariffs on British cars to be reduced first because the process is less complex than with aluminium and steel, according to the two people briefed on progress in the talks. Trump and Keir Starmer announced a 'historic' trade agreement last month that promised relief for key British industries affected by US import taxes. Trump agreed to reduce his 25% aluminium and steel tariffs to zero and slash his 25% tariff to 10% for up to 100,000 British cars a year. Two weeks ago Trump doubled US tariffs on steel and aluminium to 50% but said the UK would stay at the 25% rate until 9 July, pending enforcement of the deal and assuming that the British government 'complies with relevant aspects'. Ministers and negotiators are now racing to thrash out the details before that deadline. A trade department source stressed that the government could not predict the actions of the US administration. The UK is the only country so far that has struck an agreement with the US, though businesses have yet to feel its benefits. Starmer told MPs last Wednesday that he hoped the agreement with the US could come into effect 'in just a couple of weeks'. Cars are the UK's biggest export to the US, worth about £9bn last year. The value of the UK's steel and aluminium exports is much smaller, at about £700m a year, but the US is an important market for them. Sign up to First Thing Our US morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion One of the remaining questions for British ministers is how the quota of 100,000 cars will be allocated. Options include a free-for-all system until the quota is met, splitting it into 25,000 car exports a quarter, or earmarking a certain number of exports for small and medium-sized manufacturers. One issue the US government is concerned about is steel from other countries being processed in the UK and then exported to the US at a 0% tariff. This has triggered fears that the deal could end up excluding the UK's biggest steelmaker, Indian-owned Tata Steel, because of the origin of some of its products. Lutnick is in London for trade talks with China that aim to resolve mounting tensions between the world's two largest economies. Washington and Beijing agreed a temporary truce over tariffs last month but each country has since accused the other of breaching the deal.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves's economic vision is coming into focus – a year too late
A government this young should not look so old. Keir Starmer has not yet celebrated his first anniversary in Downing Street, but the government already moves with the plodding gait of a caretaker administration. There were painful stumbles at the start. The cut to winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners was announced within a month of the general election. Now, in the face of overwhelming opposition, it has been largely reversed. Meagre savings to the exchequer were procured at an exorbitant price in political capital. The early display of unsentimental cost-cutting by the chancellor was meant to show that Labour was serious about fiscal discipline. The legacy of Tory mismanagement – a £20bn revenue shortfall – could be cited in mitigation. Pensioners were never going to relish the confiscation of their entitlements, just as farmers were sure to complain about the loss of inheritance tax perks and businesses were unlikely to thank the chancellor for hiking their national insurance bills. But maybe some slack would be cut to an incoming government that dared to take tough decisions; maybe the memory of terrible Conservative rule was convertible into credit for their successors. The idea was to advertise Britain, under newly reliable management, as a beacon of orderliness in a chaotic world and a magnet for investment. Prudently rationed public resources would be deployed in ways that stimulate growth – upgrading transport and energy infrastructure; housebuilding. Prosperity would follow, buoying the national mood. This week's spending review is meant to be a pivotal moment in the execution of that plan. There will be increases in capital and day-to-day spending by £113bn and £190bn respectively; well in excess of what the Tories had proposed before the election. The very opposite of austerity, the Treasury insists. Rachel Reeves boasts of 'national renewal' paid as the dividend of fiscal and political stability. But Whitehall departments not chosen for munificence face harsh real-terms spending cuts. And the benefit of investment in new trains, homes and power stations won't be felt for years, decades in some cases. In a more benign climate, a newish government could make a virtue of policy designed for the long term, not bending every announcement for tactical gain. But that amounts to a plea for national forbearance, urging collective sacrifice in anticipation of future reward. After years of stagnant incomes and rising bills, there isn't much receptiveness among British voters for yet more deferral of gratification. Also, the time to get a reliable mandate for that kind of programme was before the election. The fatal flaw in Labour's economic strategy was overestimating how much goodwill would be available to the party once it had fulfilled its electoral utility as a tool for ousting the Tories. Keir Starmer won a huge majority by making himself inoffensive to as many people as possible. The campaign started from the premise that Labour loses whenever voters think it is planning a reckless tax-and-spending spree, or suspect that its leader is a leftwing fanatic. Those threats were neutralised with ferocious discipline, but at a cost in clarity about the post-election agenda. Starmer embodied a contradiction – change without upheaval. That was bound to unravel on first contact with the reality of government. In a bygone era, Reeves's attempt to deflect blame for painful choices on to the Tory legacy might have been more effective. There was obviously a mess to be cleared up and sometimes voters have long memories. The winter of discontent was brandished in evidence to disqualify Labour from office for more than a decade. Endemic sleaze and callous neglect of the public realm in the 90s did the same for the Conservatives. Their recent reign of disrepute should impose another long period of opposition penance. It probably will, but not necessarily to Labour's benefit. The conventional division of allegiance between two main parties is breaking down, perhaps irrevocably. Reform UK regularly leads in opinion polls. In terms of councils controlled, the Liberal Democrats are Great Britain's second-largest party. These might be transient trends. It isn't unprecedented for smaller parties to capitalise on dissatisfaction with the ruling when the main opposition is still discredited and divided after recent ejection from office. In late 1981, the SDP-Liberal Alliance polled at about 50%. In a general election, 18 months later, they won 23 seats. Reform is not the first party to be led by Nigel Farage and his previous vehicles – Ukip; the Brexit party – didn't convert their midterm menace into parliamentary seats. But that was when the Conservatives were competitive. In 2019, Farage didn't even try to rival Boris Johnson, withdrawing more than 300 candidates to make a Tory majority more likely. There are reasons to think the current fragmentation in party support describes a more durable shift in the structure of British politics. Reform's ascent, mostly at the expense of the Tories, conforms to an international pattern of populists and nationalists challenging more established rightwing parties and, in the American case, swallowing the old guard whole. The moribund centre-right tradition of English conservatism doesn't look any closer to resuscitation than the twitching corpse of the pre-Trump Republican party. Powerful social and cultural trends are driving these changes. They express a depth of frustration and disillusionment that is resistant to appeals from candidates who come across as advocates for continuity of the existing system. This helps explain Labour's failure to sustain its status as the nation's preferred alternative to the Tories almost as soon as the election was over. The campaign foregrounded safety and reassurance, defining change primarily as a switch of personnel at the top. In the absence of a clear agenda for the future, Starmer and Reeves ended up owning everything that is desultory about the present. In an age of endemic mistrust in politics, there was precious little benefit of the doubt to be earned. Almost overnight, Labour became just another load of politicians, sounding the same, doing unpopular stuff and making excuses for why things aren't getting any better. That feels unfair to ministers who argue, with justification, that last autumn's budget and Wednesday's spending review set Britain on a path that is very different from anything the Tories had in mind. But precious months were wasted where the gap was too hard to discern, when the only visible agenda was painful tinkering with the status quo. The problem is not the trajectory now, but the shallowness of the angle where the lines diverged last July. It is the hesitancy of the steps, the stiff posture, that makes Labour look less like a fresh team with a purposeful stride, more like the familiar retread of a much longer incumbency. Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist One year of Labour, with Pippa Crerar, Rafael Behr and more On 9 July, join Pippa Crerar, Rafael Behr, Frances O'Grady and Salma Shah as they look back at one year of the Labour government and plans for the next four years Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
