logo
‘Get on' with trans lavatory ban, Scottish civil servant told

‘Get on' with trans lavatory ban, Scottish civil servant told

Telegraph24-06-2025
Scotland's most senior civil servant has been urged to 'get on' with banning trans women using female lavatories in the public sector after being unable to say what 'specific' steps he was taking.
Joe Griffin, the SNP Government's permanent secretary, told MSPs that he was 'taking action where we think that is appropriate and possible' to implement the Supreme Court ruling that the definition of a woman is based solely on biological sex.
He said a 'a further series of actions' would follow the publication by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) of official guidance on how to comply with the ruling.
But Michelle Thomson, an SNP MSP, noted that the EHRC had been clear that public bodies did not have to wait for the guidance to prevent trans women from accessing female-only spaces and advised him to 'get on it'.
Ms Thomson warned Mr Griffin that it was a 'very poor look' that the SNP Government had 'not done anything about it', 10 weeks after losing the landmark case in the Supreme Court.
Challenged to say what he had done 'beyond talking about taking action', Mr Griffin said: 'Specific actions, I can't give you that right now.'
The exchange at Holyrood's finance and public administration committee come as the feminist campaign group that won the Supreme Court case has threatened Mr Griffin with legal action unless the ruling is urgently implemented.
For Women Scotland (FWS) wrote to him warning that the group reserved 'the right to take further action if the Scottish Government continues to fail to uphold the law'.
Sex Matters, a gender-critical charity, also last week gave the Scottish Government 14 days to introduce new policies and guidance or face further court action.
In a formal 'letter before action' sent to ministers, the charity demanded that they issue a statement that policies allowing trans people to access women-only spaces be 'suspended with immediate effect'.
Several branches of Scotland's public sector, including the Scottish Government, have adopted a gender self-identification approach, allowing trans women access to female toilets and changing rooms.
No 'specific actions'
First Minister John Swinney has said Scotland's public sector should await the EHRC guidance before acting, but the equalities watchdog has said it did not need to delay.
It noted that the law was already set out in the Supreme Court's 'very readable' ruling and this was 'effective immediately'.
Interim guidance has also been issued by the EHRC stating that access to single-sex facilities in workplaces and public services should be based on biological sex.
Mr Griffin told the committee the Scottish Government accepted the ruling and he had convened a short-life working group 'to take stock of the actions that we need to take'.
He noted that the EHRC's consultation on its guidance ends next Monday and further steps would be taken after it was finalised.
Challenged by Ms Thomson on why the Government was not complying with the ruling now, he said officials had to 'understand what the statutory regulator is proposing for how we deal with some of the complexities of the situation'.
Asked about 'what specific actions you have taken right now beyond talking', he said: 'Specific actions, I can't give you that right now.
'But the work that's involved in the group and the work that the teams that are represented on the group are taking is to prepare the ground.'
Mr Griffin said this would mean the Scottish Government was ready for the guidance being published but Ms Thomson pointed the threats of legal action from FWS and Sex Matters.
She said: 'So that is two potential further legal cases which I think, given the strength of the Supreme Court [judgment], we can anticipate the way in which they would go with potentially a significant loss of public money. I am staggered why you're not acting now.'
The FWS letter to Mr Griffin said: 'At this point in time, there is no justification for these non-compliant policies, both within Scottish Government control, to continue to be adhered to and we expect them to be immediately withdrawn.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Lawyers warn Starmer recognising Palestinian state could break international law
Lawyers warn Starmer recognising Palestinian state could break international law

BBC News

time29 minutes ago

  • BBC News

Lawyers warn Starmer recognising Palestinian state could break international law

Some of Britain's most distinguished lawyers have warned the government that recognising a Palestinian state would breach international Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced the UK would move towards recognition unless Israel met certain conditions, including agreeing a ceasefire and reviving the prospect of a two-state solution, on Tuesday.A day later, Canada announced it would also move towards recognition at a UN summit in September, where 147 of the UN's 193 member states already formally recognise a Palestinian opponents argue Palestine does not meet the legal requirements for statehood under international law because important criteria have not been met. The Montevideo Convention sets out the criteria for the recognition of a state under international law as a defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.A group of 43 peers, including some of the UK's most eminent lawyers, has set out their belief that Sir Keir's pledge could be in breach of international law as the territory may not meet these criteria for a letter to the government's attorney general, Lord Hermer, first reported by the Times, they call for him to advise the prime minister against recognition."It is clear that there is no certainty over the borders of Palestine," they argue, and also that "there is no functioning single government, Fatah and Hamas being enemies". "The former has failed to hold elections for decades, and the latter is a terrorist organisation, neither of which could enter into relations with other states," the letter adds. The peers warn that it "would be unwise to depart from" the Convention, signed in 1933, "at a time when international law is seen as fragile".They add: "You have said that a selective, 'pick and mix' approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience."Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law."Lord Hermer has previously insisted that a commitment to international law "goes absolutely to the heart" of the government's approach to foreign BBC has obtained a full list of signatories, which includes the prominent barrister Lord Pannick - who represented the previous government at the Supreme Court over its Rwanda well as lawyers, some of Parliament's most prominent Jewish voices, including crossbench peer Baroness Deech, Labour's Lord Winston and the Conservatives' Baroness Altmann, have also put their name to the letter. The peers' intervention follows condemnation of Sir Keir's announcement by Emily Damari, a British-Israeli women who was held captive by Hamas for more than a year, who said Sir Keir is "not standing on the right side of history". Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also claimed it "rewards Hamas's monstrous terrorism".Responding to fears the decision to recognise a Palestinian state does not align with the 1933 Montevideo Convention, business minister Gareth Thomas told Times Radio: "We haven't signed up to the Montevideo Convention, but is there a clear population in in Palestine? Yes, there is in Gaza and the West Bank."We have made clear that we think you would recognise the state of Palestine, and that state of Palestine would be based on the 1967 borders."Of course, there would have to be land swaps and there would be a shared capital of Jerusalem. They are well-regarded international views."Thomas stressed the UK Government had "made clear that there needs to be reform to the Palestinian Authority, that Hamas can have no role in the future government of Gaza and Palestine more generally". Pointing to the 147 other countries that have already recognised a Palestinian state, he added that the prime minister "was in talks this week with a series of countries, including Canada, and Canada have overnight, as you will have seen, taken the decision to recognise Palestine in September".Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his country plans to recognise a Palestinian state as part of the two-state solution - that is Israel and Palestine living said his decision was prompted by the "catastrophe" in Gaza, and because he feared the prospect of a Palestinian state was "receding before our eyes".The Palestinian Authority - which runs parts of the occupied West Bank - must commit to "much-needed reform" he said, and Hamas, which controlled Gaza, "can play no part".The UK has said it too would recognise a Palestinian state in September unless Israel committed to a Keir has said the UK will only refrain from recognition if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire, and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two also said Hamas must immediately release all remaining Israeli hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and "accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza". Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.

The fight for trans safety is a fight for everyone's safety – MPs must have the chance to debate it
The fight for trans safety is a fight for everyone's safety – MPs must have the chance to debate it

The Guardian

time30 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

The fight for trans safety is a fight for everyone's safety – MPs must have the chance to debate it

The supreme court judgment on the application of the 2010 Equality Act has rendered the UK's system of legal gender recognition entirely hollow. It has ruled that men like me who have gender recognition certificates are defined as women in equality law, which applies to organisations ranging from workplaces to public services and sporting bodies. Vice versa for trans women. For context, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was passed after the European court of human rights ruled that the 'intermediate zone', between two sexes, in which trans people were then forced to exist was – and, crucially, remains – unlawful. Under the Gender Recognition Act, I am male 'for all purposes', but the supreme court decided this is not the case under the Equality Act. In effect, it is not the case in public. Having run what human rights organisations criticised as an unusually short six-week public consultation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) will soon update its code of practice about how this legal interpretation of the Equality Act will be applied. This will then go to parliament to be approved by ministers, as things stand, with no opportunity for debate. Far from clarity, experts argue that the supreme court ruling has created legal uncertainty and contradiction and that the EHRC's response has been highly questionable. Rather than despair, as understandable as that would be, many trans people live in hope that their MPs are fair, ethical people, who have simply not had the opportunity to fully understand any of this. Which is why, late last month, roughly 900 people travelled from as far as Scotland and Cornwall to queue outside parliament in punishing heat to meet them in person. Many of those people were trans. Others were their loved ones, colleagues and allies. Westminster Hall and the lobby grew so busy that many never got inside. Those who hadn't managed to pre-book a meeting with their MP queued again in the hubbub to 'green card' their representative, an arcane system whereby a constituent requests their presence via a slip of green paper. Organisers were surprised by how many MPs spoke to, perhaps for the first time, someone who happened to be trans. Trans Solidarity Alliance's director, Jude Guaitamacchi, described the conversations in stark terms: 'It's 'Look me in the eye and tell me you're willing to destroy my life'.' This is known as a mass lobby, a direct and old-fashioned tactic for getting MPs' attention. What choice do trans people have at this point? Over the past 10 years, their rights have been chipped away in Britain, their lives made increasingly difficult by anti-trans lobbyists with more influential connections and far more money. Systemic transphobia has captured our public institutions with terrifying speed. For its part, the supreme court refused to hear any interventions from trans people before deciding on its recent, devastating ruling. Things were so different in 2016. When North Carolina passed a shocking 'bathroom bill' banning trans people from using the correct bathroom, the Labour MP Ruth Cadbury told the Commons that 'a bathroom bill would never be passed here in the UK'. In the same debate, the Conservative MP Caroline Dinenage welcomed a new NHS policy prescribing cross-sex hormones to young gender-variant people, acknowledging this was 'consistent with international guidelines', a description that, were it not for well-documented lobbying, would hold today. Maria Miller, a former Conservative MP, cited fairer treatment of trans prisoners as progress 'on which Britain leads the way'. Concluding, she said: 'Better protecting trans people does not mean diminishing the protections in place for women. It is not a zero-sum game and we should not allow those who attempt to paint it as such, and who try to undermine the position and legitimate rights of trans people, to succeed.' What on earth has happened? Today, any MP who dared say that protecting trans people and protecting women go hand in hand would incur the wrath of politicians and commentators from the right to the centre left. Perhaps current Labour ministers privately justify the state's capitulation to the anti-trans lobby as political expediency. Perhaps they did the same when branding many peaceful protesters against genocide as terrorists. This government is making decision after decision that betrays its own principles and those of its actual voters, who will not be fooled again. It's cold comfort that trans people are not alone in being thrown under the bus by a PM who promised an end to culture wars. Maybe the growing number of MPs who feel betrayed by their leaders are reason for hope. They must find the courage to defend their trans constituents, too. Whether they cite the UK's vertiginous slide down European LGBTQ+ rights rankings, the Council of Europe being asked to investigate the proposed implementation of the ruling or the contents of the more than 50,000 responses to the EHRC's public consultation on its code of practice, they will not lack for evidence to back them up. MPs who attended the mass lobby probably learned alarming things about what the EHRC's code of practice might look like, based on the interim guidance it released in April, which is being challenged in the high cout by the Good Law project. They might have heard from the news or comment pages that women who are trans may be banned from women's loos and shelters. What they probably did not hear is that the EHRC's interim guidance also says a women-only gardening club with more than 25 members will be legally required to exclude a trans woman, even if she's legally a woman, and even if her fellow members want her there. Perhaps you're just learning this, too. If so, pause a moment longer to consider what this would mean. This guidance, were it to become legally enshrined, would rob citizens, trans and otherwise, of the freedom to choose whom they associate with and to recognise others for who they truly are. It not only takes away trans peoples' right to define themselves in relation to their families and friends, but the freedom of those families and friends too. Does someone married to a trans woman no longer have a wife? Does the mother of a trans son, against her better knowledge, now have a daughter? What does this say about the courts' and government's readiness to curtail the freedoms of other minorities that, through no fault of their own, become politically inconvenient? The fight for trans safety is a fight for everyone's safety, whatever your identity, however you present, whatever your beliefs. The decade-long campaign against trans people is not about anyone's safety. It is exactly what it looks like: an organised effort to drive a tiny minority from public life, back into the closet. Do not let yourselves be fooled. MPs, consider what has changed since 2016 (hint: it isn't trans people), listen to what you heard at the mass lobby, heed the 100,000 who marched for London trans pride last weekend. The EHRC's proposals must be properly challenged and debated. This is a litmus test for the country's soul, wounded as it is, though not yet dead. Freddy McConnell is a freelance journalist

Jess Glynne slams White House after Jet2 deportation video
Jess Glynne slams White House after Jet2 deportation video

North Wales Chronicle

timean hour ago

  • North Wales Chronicle

Jess Glynne slams White House after Jet2 deportation video

The short clip from President Donald Trump's White House showed immigrants being pushed onto planes and deported from the United States of America. Gaining millions of views, the caption to the video reads: "When ICE books you a one-way Jet2 holiday to deportation. Nothing beats it!" The video used Jess Glynne's Hold My Hand song, made even more famous through its use on Jet2 adverts, and now the singer has hit back. why you so quiet? what's on your mind? In an Instagram story, the singer said: "This post honestly makes me sick. My music is about love, unity and spreading positivity – never about division or hate." Other users on X also slammed the video, which has received thousands of responses. One X user wrote: "This is gross", as another said: "Disgusting video, those are human, and you all animals." A third said: "This is horrible. This country is horrible." While a fourth wrote: "That's actually really sad and inhumane to make fun of them like that!" When ICE books you a one-way Jet2 holiday to deportation. ✈️🎶 Nothing beats it! Trump came into office in January 2025, where he shared promises of starting the largest deportation in the US's history. In June, ICE ( Immigration and Customs Enforcement) deported more than 15,000 people with aims for 3,000 arrests a day, according to the Metro. Trump has also cancelled temporary legal status for millions of immigrants, meaning they are at risk of deportation. Jet2 and The White House have been contacted for a comment. The Jet2 sound uses which Jess Glynn used in adverts for the brand and has recently become a viral TikTok sound. It is voiced by actress Zoe Lister, best known for portraying the role of Zoe Carpenter in the Channel 4 soap opera Hollyoaks. A post shared by Capital (@capitalofficial) Now, her voice is recognisable across the country, with "Nothing beats a Jet2 holiday!" becoming a viral audio clip. Recommended reading: UK-US trade deal: What was agreed as Trump slashes tariffs? Everything to know ahead of Donald Trump's UK state visit UK-US trade deal will save jobs in car and steel industries, says Keir Starmer It has been used in thousands of videos on TikTok, typically by funny holiday fails and mishaps. Lister has also hit back at the use of the audio by the White House. On Instagram, she said: "What can be done about @whitehouse using @jet2pics sound and my voiceover to promote their nasty agenda?"

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store