SNP warned to update guidance on single-sex spaces within days
Sex Matters, the human rights charity, issued a fresh ultimatum to ministers to update the policy on access to lavatories in government properties.
It called on them to 'provide clarity to staff and visitors that separate-sex facilities are provided on the basis of biological sex'.
The body said legal action could be launched 'without further warning' if the SNP failed to stop ' unlawful practices ' by Wednesday.
The move follows a threat of legal action made by the charity last month unless policies allowing trans people to access women-only spaces were 'suspended with immediate effect'.
John Swinney, the First Minister, has said Scotland's public sector should await guidance on implementing the ruling from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) before acting.
Correspondence released by the charity showed that on June 27, the Scottish Government responded that it 'accepts the judgement of the Supreme Court' in April and is taking action to implement the ruling.
It includes establishing a Short Life Working Group to help 'towards a state of readiness to take all necessary steps to implement the ruling'.
In a response sent on Wednesday, Sex Matters said it suggests that the Scottish Government 'now recognises that it cannot wait for the EHRC to finalise its guidance before taking necessary steps to bring its own policies in line with the law'.
It said a 'particularly straightforward and urgent step' is for SNP ministers to recall the policies on single-sex facilities in workplaces controlled by the Scottish Government.
Sex Matters pointed out that the Scottish Government estate is made up of 66 owned and leased sites, including offices, stores and buildings in the field.
It said these are 'well-provisioned with toilet facilities, with a total of 1,016 available across the core estate' for about 9,000 staff.
The charity added that toilets are generally provided as a mixture of unisex 'superloos' and traditional separate-sex cubicles urinals, as part of the commitment to meet the needs of all staff including 'providing the best support possible for all trans members of staff'.
Of the total number of toilet facilities, 18 per cent are provided as 'superloos'; a toilet and wash-hand basin in a separate room, lockable from the inside, intended for use by one person at a time.
The Scottish Government's Trans and Non Binary Equality and Inclusion Policy states that ' trans staff should choose to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with'.
In its letter, Sex Matters argued: 'The problem is not lack of infrastructure, but that the Scottish Government has been, and continues to operate an unlawful policy on toilets in its workplaces.
'That is male staff who identify as trans or non-binary can use the 'women's' facilities and female staff who identify as trans or non-binary can use the 'men's'. This policy is clearly unlawful.'
The letter states: 'As far as we can see there is nothing to stop the Scottish Government immediately bringing the policy on toilets into line with the law, by making a statement that all facilities designated as male or female within the Scottish Government estate are to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, and that gender-neutral options are widely available.'
It adds: 'This would be in line with the Supreme Court judgement and the action taken by the Scottish Parliament. It is clearly a reasonably practical step in order to address the risk of individuals using opposite-sex toilets and other facilities.'
Scottish Conservative equalities spokesperson Tess White MSP said: 'The SNP government must stop dragging its heels.
'The Supreme Court ruling was crystal clear, and so was the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's guidance in the wake of it, so there is no excuse for the SNP failing to comply fully with the law now. John Swinney's dithering is creating confusion where there should be none.'
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'The Scottish Government has made clear it accepts the Supreme Court ruling and since April has been taking forward the detailed work that is necessary as a consequence of the ruling. That work is ongoing.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Keir Starmer says good relationship with Donald Trump based on shared family values
Keir Starmer has spoken about his good relationship with the US president, Donald Trump, and their shared family values. To mark the first anniversary of the Labour government coming to power on Friday, the prime minister spoke to the BBC podcast Political Thinking and said it was 'in the national interest' for the two men to connect. 'We are different people and we've got different political backgrounds and leanings, but we do have a good relationship and that comes from a number of places,' he said. 'I think I do understand what anchors the president, what he really cares about. For both of us, we really care about family and there's a point of connection there.' In the interview, Starmer said he had a 'good personal relationship' with Trump, and revealed that the first time they spoke was after the then-presidential candidate was shot at during a campaign rally in July last year. He said Trump had reciprocated with a personal phone call a few days after Starmer's brother Nick died on Boxing Day. Addressing recent political turmoil, Starmer said he would always 'carry the can' as leader after coming under fire over a climbdown on welfare reforms and that he would 'always take responsibility' when asked questions. 'When things go well … the leader gets the plaudits, but when things don't go well, it is really important that the leader carries the can – and that's what I will always do.' Starmer also backed Rachel Reeves and said she would be chancellor 'for a very long time to come', after she was visibly tearful in the House of Commons. The scenes came after the government U-turned on planned welfare changes that put an almost £5bn hole in the chancellor's plans. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Reeves said she had been upset by a 'personal matter' before prime minister's questions on Wednesday. Appearing on broadcast media on Friday, one year to the day since the 2024 general election, the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, was asked on BBC Breakfast to score the government out of 10. 'I don't think it is for cabinet ministers to mark themselves and mark their own homework,' she said.
Sky News
38 minutes ago
- Sky News
Palestine Action to be banned as terrorist organisation at midnight – after losing late legal challenge
Palestine Action will be banned as a terrorist group after losing a legal challenge less than two hours before the law comes into force. MPs overwhelmingly voted in favour of Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the protest group under the Terrorism Act 2000 and Lords have backed the move. The law change, which adds Palestine Action to the list of banned organisations along with the likes of al Qaeda, ISIS and Hezbollah, will come into force at midnight. It makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, while even wearing a T-shirt or badge with the group's name on attracts a maximum six-month sentence. Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action after two Voyager aircraft were allegedly damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on 20 June, which police said caused around £7m worth of damage. But the High Court heard the decision had been taken before the incident and as early as March this year. Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, is seeking to bring a legal challenge against the Home Office with a hearing for permission to bring a judicial review set to take place during the week of 21 July. Her lawyers applied for "interim relief" on Friday to temporarily block the legislation from coming into force until that hearing, arguing the Irish author Sally Rooney, who wrote Normal People, was among supporters who fear the "ramifications". But Mr Justice Chamberlain refused the application, saying: "I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force." He refused permission to appeal but lawyers representing Ms Ammori applied directly to the Court of Appeal for a rare urgent hearing to challenge the decision. Three judges, including the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, refused permission to appeal in a ruling less than two hours before the ban was due to come into force. Around two hundred protestors earlier gathered outside court in support of the group, with some banging drums, waving Palestinian flags, wearing the keffiyeh scarf or holding placards and signs. Counter-protesters also arrived amid a heavy police presence. Raza Husain KC - one of 13 barristers inside a courtroom packed with journalists and members of the public - said his client Ms Ammori was inspired by the "long tradition" of direct action in the UK from suffragettes and activists protesting against apartheid and the Iraq war. "This is the first time in our history a direct action, civil disobedience group which does not advocate violence has sought to be proscribed as terrorists," he said. "We ask you to suspend, in the first instance until 21 July, what we say is an ill-considered, discriminatory, authoritarian abuse of statutory power that is alien to the basic tradition of common law and contrary to the Human Rights Act." Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, said, along with the hundreds of T-shirts in circulation, the red boiler suits associated with the group and even kaffiyehs could "arouse suspicion of membership". She said the ban would have a "chilling effect" on protest and free speech, criminalising "a huge range of behaviour", and having "severe and far reaching" consequences capable of impacting "vast numbers" of people across the UK and further afield. But Ben Watson KC, representing the government, said former members would still be free to express their views, and would not be treated any differently even if their protests involved direct action which is criminal. He argued a temporary block would be a "serious disfigurement of the statutory regime" and Palestine Action could challenge the home secretary's decision at a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. "The serious issue to be tried is met in full by the adequate alternative remedy that parliament has provided," he said. "Even if the court does conclude that there is some residual scope for judicial review… then we respectfully submit that the court needs to look at the bespoke regime that parliament has provided."
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
A year of Keir: It has ended in tears, but here's why he might be doing better than you think
Keir Starmer's first anniversary as prime minister arrives at a very bad moment. He will not be remembered for what he achieved in the past 12 months, but will be overshadowed by a humiliating double U-turn over £5bn of cuts to disability benefits which wiped out any savings from the reforms. It severely dented his authority and left him looking not in control of his rebellious MPs. In a week when he hoped to talk up the government's achievements, Starmer had to try to stabilise the financial markets after Rachel Reeves shed tears sitting next to him at Prime Minister's Questions. Although the chancellor insisted this was due to a 'personal matter,' Starmer's initial failure to guarantee she would stay in her job until the next general election sparked a wobble in the markets. Later he made clear she would remain in her post 'for many years to come' but that did not quell speculation at Westminster that she would not. The anniversary will also be remembered for Starmer's unusually frank admission of his mistakes. He took full responsibility for last week's welfare climbdown, admitting he had been distracted by the G7 and Nato summits. He regretted his controversial speech on immigration in which he unintentionally aped Enoch Powell by saying the UK risks becoming 'an island of strangers'. Remarkably, I'm told Starmer's mea culpa was his own work and not discussed with his closest advisers. This is rare for such an important intervention. All prime ministers need a sounding board; perhaps Starmer lacks one. Some allies insist his two admissions are a refreshing change from the macho politics shaped by Margaret Thatcher's 'there is no alternative' mantra, saying it showed a human side his critics often accuse the seemingly dull, technocratic PM of not displaying. (He and his family were distressed on the day of the immigration speech because his former family home in Kentish Town, London, had just been firebombed). But other Starmer allies were shocked and appalled by his move. 'Insane,' one told me. 'With zero charisma, the one thing he is supposed to be is competent. He admits he didn't read his immigration speech properly before making it. How competent is that?' Downing Street's plan was for the anniversary to mark a change of gear: the government's first year was about 'clearing up the mess' left behind by the Conservatives. Year two is supposed to begin the 'renewal of Britain' and for the public to start to see the difference Labour rule makes. However, the volte-face over welfare was Starmer's third U-turn in a month: he also diluted the ill-fated decision to means-test the pensioners' winter fuel allowance and accepted a national inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal. The U-turns reinforced the image of a prime minister not in control of events. But they were better than ploughing on and making a political problem even worse. Aides make a virtue of Starmer's pragmatism. As one puts it: 'If plan A doesn't work, he will try something else until it does. He is a problem solver. He learns from his mistakes, and is a quick learner.' Critics dispute the latter point, saying No 10 was painfully slow in spotting and ending the row over 'freebies' for Starmer and his ministers. Starmer's U-turns are not the whole story of his first year in office. The bad headlines they inevitably attracted epitomise how a relatively small number of damaging events can drown out real achievements. The media's maxim that bad news trumps good could also have been written for Starmer's government. Even Starmer's critics acknowledge his strong performance on foreign affairs. The most difficult in-tray of any MP since the end of the Second World War has dominated his first 12 months in Downing Street more than he could have expected. Foreign diplomats say Starmer's serious, grown-up approach has mended fences after the instability of the Tory years, especially with EU countries. The PM has confounded critics who warned that hugging Donald Trump close would not work. Starmer aides are adamant the US president did not sideline him over the bombing of Iran, despite appearances to the contrary. The UK secured the best deal of any country on US tariffs, as well as trade agreements with India and the EU. However, there are few votes in foreign affairs and Labour strategists believe the government's fate will be decided on three domestic issues – the economy/living standards, public services and immigration. True, mistakes have been made on the economy. On taking office, Labour was too obsessed with a revenge mission: in 2010, David Cameron and his chancellor George Osborne pinned the blame for the coalition government's austerity measures on the previous Labour government's overspending. Even though the real cause was the global financial crisis, the public bought it and Labour's economic credentials did not recover until Starmer became leader. So Reeves was determined to blame Labour's admittedly rotten fiscal inheritance on the Tories. In doing so, ministers now admit they overdid the gloom, suppressing business and consumer confidence and destroying the optimism and hope that normally greets a new government. Even after Labour's 'loveless landslide', the party should have been able to capitalise on many voters' relief at kicking the Tories out. Reeves's decision on winter fuel, announced three weeks after the election, was designed to show the financial markets that Labour could make 'tough decisions'. But it was very unpopular and became emblematic; voters judged it odd that this was the first thing Labour did. The long gap between the announcement and the chancellor's first Budget in October prolonged Labour's agony. Its honeymoon, always likely to be short, became even shorter. Although the economy grew by 0.7 per cent in the first three months of this year, Reeves's hope that this meant things were 'turning a corner' may prove to have been premature. Most experts have downgraded their growth forecasts for this year. Job and investment prospects were not helped by her £25bn hike in employers' national insurance contributions. Starmer might now find it hard to move Reeves from the Treasury; the markets wobbled on Wednesday because they feared a more left-leaning chancellor would change her fiscal rules to allow higher borrowing. The prime minister and chancellor now face a nightmarish dilemma as they work out how to fill a black hole estimated at between £20bn and £40bn in the Budget this autumn (including the £5bn of lost welfare savings). The markets don't want increased borrowing. Labour MPs clearly don't want spending cuts. The only other avenue – tax rises – is inevitable, but the options are limited by Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, national insurance for employees, or VAT. While plenty of good things have been done, Labour has often not received much credit – partly because it has not always shouted them from the rooftops. The national minimum wage was raised by 6.7 per cent, boosting the wages of a full-time worker by £1,400 a year. Renters' rights have been enhanced through legislation, including a ban on no-fault evictions. State-funded childcare will increase this autumn, when the first 300 school-based nurseries will open. Half a million more children will be eligible for free school meals from September next year. Reeves's fiscal rules will allow £113bn of investment in building projects. Other pro-growth measures include setting up GB Energy to invest in renewables and a national wealth fund to stimulate private capital. When the history books are written, perhaps the most significant change will prove to have been the new planning rules designed to allow more housebuilding. The target of 1.5 million homes in five years will be hard to hit, but Labour deserves credit for trying. The symbol of public services is the NHS, and in last month's spending review, the government prioritised it with a £29bn-a-year injection. With defence also getting a boost, other departments were squeezed by Reeves's fiscal rule to balance income and spending by 2029-30. 'We have placed a big bet on the NHS,' one Labour MP said. 'We've got to pray it works.' There are some small rays of hope for Labour. It has provided for 4 million more NHS appointments, and waiting lists have fallen by 5 per cent since their September 2023 peak, to 7.39 million. The number of people who think public services are in a bad state has dropped from 68 per cent in October to 55 per cent, according to More in Common. 'Delivery' is seen by Labour strategists as the best way to combat the growing threat from Reform UK. After appearing to ape Nigel Farage's party, Starmer now wants to go head-to-head against him at the next election. 'We have to be the progressives, fighting against the populists of Reform,' he told The Observer. But the government has not yet delivered in one area Nigel Farage is well placed to exploit – illegal migration. The small boats crisis that bedevilled the previous government now haunts Labour, with crossings at a record high. 'It's very visible; we need to do better,' one loyalist MP said. Starmer hopes closer cooperation with France will soon pay dividends. He will need it to. Can Starmer turn things round? After the shambles over welfare and his surprising mea culpa, even some natural allies are starting to doubt it. 'I'm no longer sure he has it in him,' one told me. To succeed, Starmer knows he has to deliver what he promised the country – change – and replicate his success on the international stage in the domestic arena. But his friends play down the idea of a 'big bang' reset or a single big idea. Tom Baldwin, his biographer, told me: 'The classic Starmer way to do this is not with cymbals crashing and a grand vision, but getting on with the job and doing more things in better ways.' I think Starmer will need a stronger team in Downing Street, with more experienced heavy hitters like Jonathan Powell, an undoubted success as his national security adviser. A long-promised economics adviser is required to keep a closer eye on the error-prone Reeves than Starmer has been able or willing to do. A beefed-up policy team is seen by some insiders as necessary. Some think the PM needs more advisers willing to 'speak truth to power' and tell him when the government makes mistakes – or better still, before it makes them. They say he is too reluctant to sack long-time aides who share his worldview. Morgan McSweeney, the chief of staff, has become a lightning rod for criticism of Starmer himself, as he knew he would when the going got tough. 'Part of his job is to be a human shield,' one friend said. McSweeney is in a powerful position. He was the architect of last year's landslide and, as one insider put it: 'Unusually, he chose Starmer to front his campaign to take back the party from the left's control, rather than Starmer choosing him.' Labour figures find it hard to imagine the PM without his longstanding consigliere. But McSweeney might walk out, or a plan mooted this spring for him to return to being a campaign strategist might be revived. McSweeney's detractors concede he has improved the No 10 operation after taking over from the former civil servant Sue Gray, who was forced out only three months after the election. She is blamed for Labour's uncertain start. 'We had a plan to win the election but no plan for government,' one minister admitted. But Gray did ensure that Starmer talked to his ministers and MPs and reached out beyond his trusted advisers; a failure to do that contributed to the welfare rebellion. The PM needs to rebuild relations with his unhappy backbenchers. In mishandling the welfare issue, he blew up his strategy of marginalising the 35 Corbynista MPs, who joined forces with the much bigger soft left contingent to defeat the cuts. Some soft left rebels now want to rally behind Starmer to unite a divided party – but, having tasted power, others will want to wield it in future. Starmer has acknowledged the need for a coherent narrative that sets out what his government is about. 'We haven't always told our story as well as we should,' he told Sky News on the margins of the G7 summit. Although he recoils from 'performative politics', it is his duty to become a better communicator. 'He needs a project, a plan,' one adviser told me. 'He has to learn you can't govern without an agenda. He now needs to pin down what he believes in, what he wants his legacy to be, and what he fights the next election on.' After the welfare debacle, Starmer's government ends its first year looking battered and bruised. It feels much older than 12 months. Labour trails Reform by five points in the opinion polls and has had the worst start of a newly elected government in history. With Starmer's personal ratings dire, it is no longer unthinkable that his party decides he is not the right leader for the next election. The unhappy anniversary week has fuelled such chatter among Labour MPs. His internal critics will look for progress by what will be difficult elections for Labour next May, for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and local authorities, including in London. But, unlike the Tories, Labour doesn't do regicide, and we are not there yet. Starmer has a ruthless streak, and opponents underestimate him at their peril. 'I am hugely competitive – whether it's on the football pitch, whether it's in politics or any other aspect of life,' he told the BBC this week. The PM has been here before: he also had a bad first year as Labour leader. He believes people were wrong to write him off after Labour lost the 2021 Hartlepool by-election, and that they are wrong today. In 2021, he shook up his team, fought back, and against the odds won a landslide. In his next fightback, Starmer again intends to do whatever it takes. But don't expect a fireworks display. He will do it his way.
