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
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Labour faces backlash after taking credit for Bank of England's interest rate cuts
The Government came under fire last night after seeking to take credit for interest rate cuts in the UK. Rachel Reeves used her spending review to claim her policies have 'helped support four cuts in interest rates ' by the Bank of England since the election. It echoed similar comments from Sir Keir Starmer at Prime Minister's Questions just minutes earlier. But they faced a backlash from economists. Simon French, chief economist at City broker Panmure Liberum, said that Labour's spending may have led to higher interest rates. Describing himself as 'uncomfortable with this line from the Chancellor that fiscal policy has supported cutting UK interest rates four times', he said: 'Basic economics would have it that looser fiscal policy necessitates tighter monetary policy, all else being equal.' The former Bank of England rate-setter Andrew Sentance said French's analysis was 'absolutely right' and suggested that the Bank 'has been over-hasty in cutting rates'. And Julian Jessop, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, noted that while Starmer 'is still trying to claim credit for four interest rate cuts', the European Central Bank 'has cut interest rates eight times in the past year'. The Bank's monetary policy committee is independent and Government ministers have no say in its interest rate decisions.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Brazil's top court forms majority to hold social media platforms accountable for users' posts
BRASILIA, June 11 (Reuters) - Brazil's Supreme Court formed a majority on Wednesday to hold social media companies accountable for the content published by users on their platforms in the country.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes
A Wisconsin watchdog group has filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk claiming that he unlawfully bribed voters with million dollar checks and $100 giveaways in the state's latest Supreme Court election. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — a non-partisan, nonprofit organization that investigates election transparency — along with two Wisconsin voters, filed the suit against Musk, his super PAC America PAC, and another Musk-owned entity called the United States of America Inc.. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed that Musk and his entities violated state laws that prohibit vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries. It also accuses Musk of conducting civil conspiracy and acting as a public nuisance. Musk and America PAC did not respond to a request for comment. 'In the context of an election for Wisconsin's highest court, election bribery—providing more than $1 to induce electors (that is, voters) to vote— undermines voters' faith in the validity of the electoral system and the independence of the judiciary,' the suit reads. The complaint alleges that Musk violated state laws giving away $100 to voters who signed a petition 'in opposition to activist judges' and handing out million dollar checks to those who signed the petition. and The suit says that those who had won the checks had voted for candidate Brad Schimel. At a town hall in Green Bay, Musk gave away million dollar checks to two different people, both of which the suit claims voted for Schimel. In a video America PAC posted on X, one of the winners said he had voted for Schimel and encouraged others to do the same. 'Everyone needs to do what I just did, sign the petition, refer your friends, and go out to vote for Brad Schimel,' the winner, Nicholas Jacobs, said in the video. The suit mentions that Musk had said that the $1 million awards would be given 'in appreciation' for those 'taking the time to vote.' Despite Musk's America PAC spending over $12 million dollars on Schimel's campaign, candidate Susan Crawford still won the race. Before the race had been called, Wisconsin attorney general Josh Kaul filed a similar lawsuit against Musk for his involvement in the state Supreme Court election, but a county judge declined to immediately hold a hearing. A Pennsylvania judge similarly declined a request to block Musk's million-dollar giveaways in the state. During the presidential election, Musk's America PAC had also given out million dollar checks to people registered to vote in swing states, which the Justice Department had warned could be illegal. Musk defended his giveaways during the presidential election despite the allegations of unlawfulness by saying that those who signed the petition weren't given the money as a prize and that chance 'was not involved here.' Those who signed the petition were instead America PAC spokespeople with the 'opportunity to earn' $1 million. 'Make no mistake: an eligible voter's opportunity to earn is not the same thing as a chance to win,' Musk said, according to Reuters. Jeff Mendel, the co-founder of Law Forward — the law firm that filed the suit on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — said in an interview with NBC News that this lawsuit has the advantage of additional time. 'The election is over. Some passions have cooled, and we are bringing this in a normal posture, asking the court to go through its normal procedure,' Mendel said. 'We are confident that we'll get a complete and fair adjudication.' The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's lawsuit also seeks to bar Musk from 'replicating any such unlawful conduct in relation to future Wisconsin elections.' 'Almost everyone who was watching closely or saw what was happening here in Wisconsin in that very tight period was pretty horrified, and would say things like, 'Well, this can't possibly be legal,' or 'he can't possibly get away with this,'' Mendel said. 'That's really the purpose of this lawsuit, is to make sure that a court does say — in accord with both the law and, I think people across the political spectrums intuition — that this is not legal conduct, this is not consistent with how our democracy works, and to make sure it doesn't happen again.'
