MPs seek assurances from UK equalities watchdog over gender ruling
A cross-party committee of MPs has written to the UK's equalities watchdog to seek assurances that its guidance on how organisations interpret the landmark supreme court ruling on gender issues does not ignore the needs of transgender people.
The letter from the Commons women and equalities committee to Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, also urged her to extend the two-week timetable for people to submit views on how the EHRC's code of practice for organisations should work, saying this should be at least six weeks.
It follows concern from transgender activists and a number of MPs that Lady Falkner and her organisation have thus far taken an overly literal approach to last month's supreme court decision, which ruled that 'woman' in the Equality Act refers only to a biological woman.
Immediately after the judgment, Falkner said the ruling meant only biological women could use single-sex changing rooms and women's toilets, or participate in women-only sporting events and teams, or be placed in women's wards in hospitals.
Interim guidance from the EHRC set this out more formally, saying also that in some circumstances, transgender men, who were born as women, should not be able to use male toilets, while adding that trans people 'should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use'.
While ministers have welcomed what they called the 'clarity' of the ruling and guidance, a number of MPs have raised worries about the implications for transgender people, for example whether people who had lived as women for decades would suddenly have to start using men's toilets.
Sarah Owen, the Labour MP who chairs the women and equalities committee, has said many transgender people were 'anxious and unsure about where this ruling leaves them'.
The letter, sent on behalf of the whole committee, asks Falkner to give information on a number of points, including: 'What steps the EHRC will be taking to ensure that the code of practice is supportive of the rights of all people (as noted in the supreme court judgment).'
It also asks 'whether the code of practice will clarify rights of trans people, for example around strip-searching by police officers?'
Following the ruling, the British Transport Police said it had updated its policy so that searches in custody would be conducted 'in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee', meaning trans women would in future be strip-searched by male officers.
On the two-week timetable for the consultation, the committee asked: 'What the reasoning was on deciding on a two-week consultation period and how that consultation will work in practice, for example will the EHRC proactively seek input from any particular groups or stakeholders?
'As a committee, we feel that at least six weeks minimum would be more appropriate to allow all stakeholders, including individuals, charities and disability groups, businesses, health providers and local authorities to contribute.'
The letter also asks Falkner to set out what advice is being given to organisations who raise queries prior to the new code being available, and when it would be finalised.
It also notes that the ruling meant there 'may be legal implications beyond the scope of the issues considered by the supreme court', asking if the EHRC will accept submissions on these.
The EHRC was contacted for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trans ex-judge says gender ruling risks lives
The UK's only judge to ever publicly say they are transgender has told the BBC she is concerned the Supreme Court's ruling on biological sex puts lives at risk and fears "someone's going to get killed" because of it. Dr Victoria McCloud is planning to take the government to the European Court of Human Rights over the April ruling, which said a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law. That led to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issuing new interim guidance to services and businesses on access to public facilities, such as toilets and changing rooms. Maya Forstater, of campaign group Sex Matters, said Dr McCloud's comments were "alarmism". Speaking to Laura Kuenssberg on Newscast, the BBC's daily news podcast, Dr McCloud said: "This incident is putting lives at risk. I can't go out to the pub now, for example. It might not be the be all and end all of life but I am a lawyer. "I've got to use the men's loos in a south London pub with a bunch of blokes who are drunk. I mean, come on. That's now government policy. Someone's going to get killed." Dr McCloud said she agreed with an argument put forward by "the gender critical ideological movement" that it is "risky" or "at least rather intimidating" to have a space designated for women, such as a changing room, that is occupied by men. "But that applies to me too," she added. Listen to the full Newscast interview on BBC Sounds "That danger is all the more if it is not going to be me and a bunch of women and one man, instead it's me - one woman - in an entirely male space in a drunk pub. "That's absolutely clearly dangerous." Ms Forstater said: "Women have already been assaulted and many, many are self-excluding because of the policy Dr McCloud endorses of allowing men to self-identify into women's toilets, showers and changing rooms. "Where's the concern for the female half of the population who need privacy, safety and dignity? "If McCloud isn't comfortable using male-only spaces, then there are usually gender-neutral options available. This is irresponsible alarmism." In the wake of the unanimous Supreme Court judgement, Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson, speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme in April, stopped short of explicitly saying trans women should use the men's toilets. She said: "The ruling was clear that provisions and services should be accessed on the basis of biological sex." Pushed further for clarification on whether a trans woman should use the men's or women's toilets, she repeated: "The ruling is clear." The EHRC has already suggested trans people should use their "powers of advocacy" to campaign for so-called third spaces that are gender-neutral to avoid these sorts of dilemmas. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said in April the ruling gave "much-needed clarity" for those drawing up guidance. "We need to move and make sure that we now ensure that all guidance is in the right place according to that judgement. "A woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear." Dr McCloud moved to Ireland after leaving her job as a judge last year and says she visits the UK only on essential trips. She said she is going to challenge the Supreme Court judgement at the ECHR, arguing the court did not hear from trans people before its ruling, and therefore breached her human rights. The Supreme Court did consider arguments on trans issues from the human rights campaign group Amnesty International, but not from exclusively trans activists. People could be asked to prove biological sex under new EHRC code Five key takeaways from Supreme Court ruling
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Liberty loses bid to bring legal action against equalities body
Human rights group Liberty has lost a bid to bring legal action against the equalities watchdog over its consultation in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on gender. The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment. The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful. Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable. In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.' 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added. At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services. The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'. Ms Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'. She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.' Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'. Ms Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.' Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'. James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'. He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point. 'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.' The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'. He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.' Mr Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Playgrounds must be saved to stop children being ‘glued to screens', MPs say
Playgrounds across England must be protected from being 'left to rot' so children can avoid being 'glued to screens', ministers have been told. A cross-party group of MPs are backing plans which would ensure town halls keep play parks in good order, while housing developers would be required to provide 'high quality, accessible, inclusive' areas for play on new build sites. The amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is expected to be considered when the legislation returns to the Commons on Monday. Some 49 MPs from the Labour Party, the Greens, and the Liberal Democrats, as well independents, have so far signalled their support for the amendment to the Bill, which would introduce a 'play sufficiency duty' in England. Similar measures already exist in Scotland and Wales, and require councils to regularly assess whether there are enough playgrounds and other play facilities in their areas. The amendment, introduced by Labour MP Tom Hayes, would also 'require new developments to provide high-quality, accessible, inclusive play opportunities which incorporate natural features and are integrated within broader public spaces', and could see councils withhold planning permission if new estates lead to a net loss of play areas. Mr Hayes, the MP for Bournemouth East, told the PA news agency: 'When playgrounds are left to rot, and we have the power to put things right, what message is that sending to families? 'New Clause 82 is a common-sense, no-cost way to protect the play spaces we have today and ensure developments in the future focus on children. 'England must join Scotland and Wales in providing a play sufficiency duty, and my amendment does just that.' In January, the Labour MP led a Westminster Hall debate on playgrounds, where he emphasised the importance of play to children's development and said the Government need to be on the 'side of playing children', as well as the 'side of working people' . The debate was the first of its kind in seven years, he said, and the longest in 17 years, when a national play strategy was introduced by the previous Labour government. Mr Hayes added: 'Children sitting GCSEs this year weren't even alive the last time a government, a Labour government, produced a national play strategy and funded playgrounds. 'Today children end up indoors, glued to screens because they don't have safe play spaces. For families on tight budgets, paying for indoor play isn't an option. 'They're left with bare patches of tarmac where a climbing frame should be, or rusted swing frames that only remind them of what used to be. 'Children growing up in cramped flats rely on playgrounds. My amendment supports their right to play and provides inclusive play areas for children with special educational needs and disabilities, too.' The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government was contacted for comment.
