Labour postpones women's conference after Supreme Court ruling
The Labour Party has postponed its annual Women's Conference in the wake of advice following last month's ruling on the legal definition of a woman.
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
Up until the ruling, Labour had allowed people to self-identify as a woman, so trans women could attend the event and also take part in "positive action" measures such as all-women shortlists.
The decision has been condemned by trans rights advocates as an "attempt to isolate trans people" and by gender critical activists as "a kneejerk reaction".
People could be asked to prove biological sex under new EHRC code
Labour Women's Conference is traditionally held the day before the main conference and brings together hundreds of women from Labour's activist base, including MPs, councillors, and supporters for a day of discussion and policy-making.
A leaked advice paper to Labour's governing body, the National Executive Committee (NEC), recommended delaying the conference because the "only legally defensible alternative" would be to restrict attendance to biological women.
The paper set out how "there is a significant risk of legal challenge to the event as it currently operates" and "there may be protests, direct action and heightened security risks" if it goes ahead on 27 September.
That could carry a "political risk" of overshadowing the party's showcase autumn conference which begins the following day on 28 September.
On Tuesday night, the party's NEC voted to delay the conference, pending a wider review of positive action measures.
The NEC also decided to postpone the elections to the National Labour Women's Committee, which are normally held at the conference, and to extend the terms of those currently serving.
Labour moved away from using all-women shortlists at the last general election. The leaked paper also advised the party to issue guidance to make clear that all-women shortlists can only apply to "applicants who were biologically female at birth".
A Labour Party spokesperson said the party must make sure all its procedures "comply with the Supreme Court's clear ruling".
"Labour is clear that everyone in our society deserves to be treated with dignity and respect," he said.
"The party will work closely with individuals and local parties to implement the necessary changes with sensitivity and care."
Ministers will consider the Equality and Human Rights Commission's code of practice, which it has just put out for consultation.
The decision was condemned by Georgia Meadows, who was speaking as LGBT+ Labour's trans officer.
"It is a blatant attack on trans rights and is seemingly an attempt to isolate trans people even further within the Labour Party and the Labour movement more widely," they said.
The Labour Women's Declaration group, which backs "sex-based rights", said cancelling the conference would be a "knee-jerk reaction".
A spokesperson told the LabourList website: "We are shocked that hundreds of women in the Labour Party might be prevented from meeting at conference because the NEC would prefer to disadvantage all women rather than to exclude the very small number of trans-identified men who may wish to attend the women's conference."
Starmer does not believe trans women are women, No 10 says
'Life for our community is a living hell after court ruling'
Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Labour MPs in call for benefits U-turn after change to winter fuel payment cut
Labour backbenchers have called for a Government U-turn on planned disability benefit cuts, after Chancellor Rachel Reeves restored winter fuel payments to a majority of pensioners. Ms Reeves' £1.25 billion plan unveiled on Monday will see automatic payments worth up to £300 given to pensioners with an income less than £35,000 a year. It followed last year's decision to strip pensioners of the previously universal scheme, unless they claimed certain benefits, such as pension credit. Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, warned ministers they risked making a 'similar mistake' if they tighten the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments, known as Pip. Leeds East MP Richard Burgon called on pensions minister Torsten Bell to 'listen now' so that backbenchers can help the Government 'get it right'. In her warning, Ms Whittome said she was not asking Mr Bell 'to keep the status quo or not to support people into work' and added: 'I'm simply asking him not to cut disabled people's benefits.' The pensions minister, who works in both the Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions, replied that the numbers of people receiving Pip is set to 'continue to grow every single year in the years ahead, after the changes set out by this Government'. In its Pathways to Work green paper, the Government proposed a new eligibility requirement, so Pip claimants must score a minimum of four points on one daily living activity, such as preparing food, washing and bathing, using the toilet or reading, to receive the daily living element of the benefit. 'This means that people who only score the lowest points on each of the Pip daily living activities will lose their entitlement in future,' the document noted. Mr Burgon told the Commons: 'As a Labour MP who voted against the winter fuel payment cuts, I very much welcome this change in position, but can I urge the minister and the Government to learn the lessons of this and one of the lessons is, listen to backbenchers? 'If the minister and the Government listen to backbenchers, that can help the Government get it right, help the Government avoid getting it wrong, and so what we don't want is to be here in a year or two's time with a minister sent to the despatch box after not listening to backbenchers on disability benefit cuts, making another U-turn again.' Mr Bell replied that it was 'important to listen to backbenchers, to frontbenchers'. Opposition MPs cheered when the minister added: 'It's even important to listen to members opposite on occasion.' Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin warned that 'judging by the questions from his own backbenchers, it seems that we're going to have further U-turns on Pip and on the two-child benefit cap'. The Tunbridge Wells MP asked Mr Bell: 'To save his colleagues anguish, will he let us know now when those U-turns are coming?' The minister replied: 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Labour Government bringing down child poverty, and that's what we're going to do 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Government that can take the responsible decisions, including difficult ones on tax and on means testing the winter fuel payment so that we can invest in public services and turn around the disgrace that has become Britain's public realm for far too long.' Conservative former work and pensions secretary Esther McVey had earlier asked whether the Chancellor, 'now that she and the Government have got a taste for climbdowns', would 'reverse the equally ridiculous national insurance contribution (Nic) rises, which is destroying jobs, and the inheritance tax changes, which is destroying farms and family businesses'. Mr Bell said: 'This is a party opposite that has learned no lessons whatsoever, that thinks it can come to this chamber, call for more spending, oppose every tax rise and expect to ever be taken seriously again – they will not.' Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey pressed the Government to make changes to the two-child benefit cap, which means most parents cannot claim for more than two children. 'It's the right thing to do to lift pensioners out of poverty, and I'm sure that both he and the Chancellor also agree that it's right to lift children out of poverty,' the Salford MP told the Commons. 'So can he reassure this House that he and the Chancellor are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible?' Mr Bell replied: 'All levers to reduce child poverty are on the table. 'The child poverty strategy will be published in the autumn.' He added: 'If we look at who is struggling most, having to turn off their heating, it is actually younger families with children that are struggling with that. 'So she's absolutely right to raise this issue, it is one of the core purposes of this Government, we cannot carry on with a situation where large families, huge percentages of them, are in poverty.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
MP calls for ‘chronic under-supply' of Gypsy and Traveller sites to be addressed
A Labour MP has called on the Government to address the 'chronic under-supply' of Gypsy and Traveller sites across England. Mary Kelly Foy said planning decisions on these sites 'have frequently been underpinned by prejudice', with just 30 created over the past 30 years. The MP for City of Durham tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which proposes that Gypsy and Traveller sites are included in spatial development strategies. Speaking in the Commons, she said: 'Today I rise to speak to amendment 134, in my name, that works towards addressing a long-standing and deeply entrenched failure in our planning system, the chronic under-supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites across England. 'And my amendment seeks to increase fairness into the system to enable, rather than hinder, the provision of adequate, culturally appropriate accommodation for Gypsy and Traveller communities. 'For too long, the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers have been overlooked by the planning system.' She added: 'The Government has committed to delivering 1.5 million new homes by 2029, if that ambition is to be truly inclusive, it must include everyone, and that means by making space, literally and politically, for communities who have been moved on, fenced off and forgotten.' Ms Foy said just 30 sites have been created over the past 30 years, adding: 'Decisions on Gypsy and Traveller sites have frequently been underpinned by prejudice, whether overt or institutional. 'Too often, proposed developments are blocked or delayed by local opposition that's not met with political will or leadership. 'Site delivery also suffers from a lack of inclusion at the strategic planning level, where Gypsy and Traveller site provision can be absent from local plans and excluded from land allocations. And this absence isn't an accident, it's a result of years of structural marginalisation that this Bill must now correct.' Ms Foy said the UK is 'seeing a troubling trend' with the number of socially rented pitches declining. She argued that leaving out Gypsy and Traveller sites from future strategies would be 'repeating mistakes of the past'.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
The five considerable problems with the chancellor's U-turn on winter fuel payments
There are considerable problems with the winter fuel payment U-turn, but perhaps the political argument in favour outweighs them all? First, Rachel Reeves has executed without working out how to pay for it. This, for an iron chancellor, is a wound that opponents won't let her forget. A summer of speculation about tax rises is not a summer anyone looks forward to. Politics latest: Second, the fig leaf that she and Treasury ministers are using is an improvement in economic conditions. If you were being polite, you'd say this is contested. The OBR halved growth this year and the OECD downgraded UK forecasts, albeit only by a little, last week. The claim that interest rates are coming down ignores that their descent is slower because of government decisions of the last six months. Third, the question immediately becomes, what next? Why not personal independent payments (PIP) and the two-child benefit cap? At this stage, it would feel like a climbdown if they did not back down over those. But then, what will the markets - already policing this closely - make of it, and could they punish the government? Fourth, this is aggravating divisions in the Parliamentary Labour Party: the soft left Compass group and ministers like Torsten Bell pushing bigger spending arguments. Those MPs in Tory-facing seats who rely on arguments that Labour can be trusted with the public finances are this has created a firm division between No 10 (the PM) and No 11 (the Chancellor). No 10 is now conscious that it does not have enough independent advice about the market reaction to economic policies and is seeking to correct. Others, I am told, are just critical of the chancellor's U-turn - for she wobbled first. Read more: Given the litany of arguments against, why has it happened? Because the hope is this maxi U-turn lances the boil, removes a significant source of pensioners' anger and brings back Labour voters, a price they calculate worth paying, whatever the fiscal cost. We wait to see who is right.
