Trade union bosses hit by furious backlash from activists after telling transgender women they must use men's toilets at annual conference
Leaders of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) had previously claimed the equality watchdog's guidance in the light of the Supreme Court ruling on single-sex services was 'not fit for purpose' and 'damaging'.
They had promised just last month to support 'trans and non-binary members [who] will be facing worry and uncertainty following the judgement'.
But on the eve of the PCS's annual conference in Brighton this week, the same union bosses warned delegates they risk breaking the law if they do not use the correct lavatories.
They acknowledged the 'strength of feeling' generated by the judgment - which declared that the definition of a woman is down to biological sex rather than gender identity - but added they had a 'duty to act in accordance' with equality law.
General Secretary Fran Heathcote and President Martin Cavanagh wrote in a statement to all those attending the event: 'It is important to remember that, irrespective of our personal views, any breach of the Equality Act 2010 may give rise to legal liability and, on that basis, we ask all delegates to use the facilities in accordance with the above.'
They added that the Brighton Centre provides 'toilets for everyone' as well as separate male and female lavatories so they were confident that the venue 'provides the appropriate range of facilities'.
It sparked an angry response from the hard-left wing of the union – which represents 190,000 civil servants and public sector workers – who branded them 'ignorant and cowardly'.
PCS Independent Left blasted in leaflets handed out to those at the event: 'The statement's intent is sickeningly clear, while seeking to obfuscate behind legalese; it is an instruction to trans members of our union not to use the toilets they are used to using, and to use the 'toilets for everyone' instead.
'This position is legally ignorant as well as politically cowardly and we in the Independent Left support our members continuing to use the toilets they are used to using without overzealous and bigoted interpretation of the judgement and other legislation by the PCS leadership.'
It went on: 'It is therefore completely, utterly and totally inappropriate to seek to push the perceived liability for living their lives as normal onto our trans members in the way the statement from the leadership seeks to do: Asking them what they can do for their (well-paid) union (FTOs) by agreeing to this sick segregationist interpretation of the law, rather than asking them what the union can do to protect their human rights and most basic liberties, to be able to use a bathroom without interrogation over biological essentialist views of gender and biased social norms of gender presentation, or a right-wing media-induced moral panic over suspicion of predatory behaviour.'
And there were complaints that transgender conference delegates were continuing to use the female toilets in defiance of the order from their union bosses.
One female union member complained to the Brighton Centre: 'On the first day, I encountered males in the female toilets on the first floor. When challenged one male made it clear he felt it appropriate for him to be in the female toilets (despite there being all access/gender neutral toilets immediately available) and insisted he will continue to use them. I told him this amounted to sexual harassment and he laughed.'
Activists later tried to block the formal opening of the conference unless a controversial motion – which the Mail revealed threatened strike action over the 'segregation' of transgender people in workplace toilets – was added to the agenda.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Badenoch urges Tory councils to challenge asylum hotels in court
Kemi Badenoch has called for more Conservative councils to launch legal challenges over asylum hotels as the Government faces a potential revolt from its own local authorities. In a letter to Tory councils, Mrs Badenoch said she was 'encouraging' them to 'take the same steps' as Epping Council 'if your legal advice supports it'. Labour dismissed her letter as 'desperate and hypocritical nonsense', but several of its own local authorities have already suggested they too could mount legal action against asylum hotels in their areas. Epping secured a temporary injunction from the High Court on Tuesday, blocking the use of the Essex town's Bell Hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers on planning grounds. The decision has prompted councils controlled by Labour, the Conservatives and Reform UK to investigate whether they could pursue a similar course of action. These include Labour-run Tamworth and Wirral councils, Tory-run Broxbourne and East Lindsey councils and Reform's Staffordshire and West Northamptonshire councils. But Labour's Newcastle City Council and Brighton and Hove City Council have both ruled out legal action. Tuesday's High Court decision has also caused a potential headache for the Home Office, which has a legal duty to house destitute asylum seekers while their claims are being dealt with. If planning laws prevent the Government from using hotels, ministers will face a scramble to find alternative accommodation, potentially in the private rented sector. In her letter, Mrs Badenoch praised Epping Council's legal challenge and told Tory councils she would 'back you to take similar action to protect your community'. But she added that the situation would 'depend on individual circumstances of the case' and suggested Tory councils could pursue 'other planning enforcement options'. She also accused Labour of 'trying to ram through such asylum hotels without consultation and without proper process', saying the Government had reopened the Bell Hotel as asylum accommodation after the Conservatives had closed it. The hotel had previously been used as asylum accommodation briefly in 2020 and then between 2022 and 2024 under the previous Conservative government. A Labour spokesperson said Mrs Badenoch's letter was a 'pathetic stunt' and 'desperate and hypocritical nonsense from the architects of the broken asylum system', saying there were now '20,000 fewer asylum seekers in hotels than at their peak under the Tories'. The letter comes ahead of the publication on Thursday of figures showing how many asylum seekers were being temporarily housed in hotels at the end of June this year. Home Office figures from the previous quarter show there were 32,345 asylum seekers being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March. This was down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079, and 6% lower than the 34,530 at the same point a year earlier. Figures on those staying in hotels date back to December 2022 and showed numbers hit a peak at the end of September 2023, when there were 56,042 asylum seekers in hotels. Data is not released on the number of hotels in use, but it is thought there were more than 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023. Labour has said this has since been reduced to fewer than 210.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Met Police's use of facial recognition tech ‘breaches human rights'
Scotland Yard's plan to increase the use of live facial recognition technology is incompatible with human rights law, the equality watchdog has said. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said the Metropolitan Police's policies for deploying the technology 'fall short' and could have a 'chilling effect' on individuals' rights when used at protests. Privacy concerns about live facial recognition (LFR) intensified this week as the Met finalised plans to use it on the approaches to, but not within the boundaries of, the Notting Hill Carnival over the bank holiday weekend. LFR links cameras to a watch list of photos of wanted suspects. Biometric data from a person's face is extracted and compared against the list, and a positive match alerts officers who can seek and stop them.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
MSPs call for oath to King to be scrapped
Holyrood should follow the lead of Grenada by scrapping a requirement for politicians to swear allegiance to the King, more than a dozen MSPs have claimed. A motion put forward by Kevin Stewart, a former SNP minister, heaped praise on the Commonwealth island nation for this month officially abandoning the need for officials to pledge loyalty to the monarch, and instead promise to serve the 'people of Grenada'. The Aberdeen Central MSP said that the Scottish parliament should also have the power to 'have its members pledge allegiance to the people of Scotland and not an unelected monarch'. His call has so far been backed by 14 of his colleagues, with mainly nationalists from the SNP and Greens putting their names to his motion, as well as Mercedes Villalba, the left-wing Labour MSP. On entering parliament, MSPs are required by law to swear to be 'faithful and bear true allegiance' to the British head of state, despite a sizeable number of republicans sitting in Holyrood. Murdo Fraser, the Tory MSP, accused Stewart of launching a 'shameless bid to try and pander to republican voters both inside and outside his party'. While official SNP policy remains to retain the British monarch as head of state should Scotland become independent, the position is widely seen as being designed not to alienate royalist voters. In her memoir, Nicola Sturgeon admitted she was a republican 'at heart and by instinct', a position shared by her successor Humza Yousaf. John Swinney has reiterated that it is the SNP's position that an independent Scotland would keep the King as head of state, but he has not made his personal views on the issue known. 'The reality is that the King and the monarchy remain one of the most loved and respected institutions across Scotland,' Fraser said. 'Most people will wonder why nationalist MSPs are focusing on this constitutional navel-gazing at a time when they should be tackling the real priorities of Scots. 'They want this SNP government to be focused on reducing NHS waiting times, growing the economy and restoring standards in our schools, rather than engaging in the worst sort of petty student politics.' Under the Scotland Act, which created the devolved parliament, MSPs must take the 'oath of allegiance' and are not allowed to take part in proceedings until they have done so. Those who do not do so within two months of being elected cease to be MSPs. Holyrood does not have the power to change the requirement, meaning the law would have to be altered at Westminster for the rule to be abolished or changed. Republican MSPs who feel strongly opposed to swearing allegiance to the monarch have typically undertaken acts of protest before doing so, for example by stating that their real allegiance is to the Scottish people. Dickon Mitchell, Grenada's prime minister, wants the nation to become a republic and remove Britain's monarch as its head of state. The legal changes to oath requirements on the island took effect earlier this month as Caribbean nations marked Emancipation Day, the anniversary of slavery being abolished in the British Empire in 1834. The law states that the word 'Grenada' should replace 'His Majesty King Charles the Third, his heirs and successors' in its oath. It adds that in any law requiring an oath the words 'our sovereign lord the King' must be deleted and replaced with 'the people of Grenada'. Asked whether the Scottish government supported Stewart's call for Holyrood to gain the powers to make similar changes, a spokesman declined to comment.
