Labour postpones women's conference over Supreme Court transgender ruling
The party's ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) voted on Tuesday to postpone the event, which was due to take place in September, pending a review.
A leaked advice paper had recommended postponing it because the 'only legally defensible alternative' would be to restrict attendance to biological women.
The NEC also decided to extend the terms of those serving on the National Labour Women's Committee until a conference takes place and elections can be held.
A Labour Party spokesperson said the party must make sure all its procedures 'comply with the Supreme Court's clear ruling' and that it would make any changes required with 'sensitivity and care'.
The Supreme Court ruled in April that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'.
The party will interpret measures relating to women on the basis of biological sex at birth, it is understood.
Labour had previously operated its 'positive action' measures on the basis of self-identification, allowing transgender women to take part.
A leaked advice paper produced for the NEC meeting recommended postponing the women's conference on September 27 because '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.
That could carry a 'political risk' of overshadowing the party's showcase autumn conference which begins the following day.
The recommendation in the paper was to postpone the women's conference pending a wider review of positive action measures.
The paper also says the party should issue guidance to make clear that all-women shortlists can only apply to 'applicants who were biologically female at birth'.
Labour did not use all-women shortlists at the last general election.
A Labour Party spokesperson said: 'Like all other organisations, the Labour Party must ensure all party procedures comply with the Supreme Court's clear ruling.
This is the joint statement from myself as Trans Officer for LGBT Labour, @Lab4TransRights and @PrideInLabour. pic.twitter.com/sEW66HboYS
— Georgia Meadows (@MsGrgaMeadows) May 19, 2025
'Labour is clear that everyone in our society deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.
'The party will work closely with individuals and local parties to implement the necessary changes with sensitivity and care.'
It is understood Labour will respect the Supreme Court judgment and comply with statutory guidance when it is published.
Ministers will consider the Equality and Human Rights Commission's code of practice when a draft is submitted by the body.
The Labour for Trans Rights group, along with Pride in Labour and LGBT+ Labour's trans officer, Georgia Meadows, condemned the NEC paper and its recommendations.
They said: '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.'
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.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
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'.
The Independent
5 hours ago
- The Independent
Labour rebel forces Commons vote amid fears of housebuilding reforms ‘wreckage'
Labour MPs have rebelled against the Government over its plans to override nature protections, amid fears its housebuilding reforms amount to a 'wreckage'. Housing minister Matthew Pennycook said developers will be able to pay into a new nature recovery fund to bolster conservation efforts, which he denied was a 'cash to trash model'. But North East Hertfordshire MP Chris Hinchliff forced a division on his amendment 69, which would compel developers to improve the conservation status of environmental features on their land before causing 'damage'. MPs voted to reject the amendment, with 180 in favour, 307 against, majority 127. Mother of the House Diane Abbott, Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) and Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) were among the 14 Labour MPs who rebelled against the Government. In addition to Mr Hinchliff, Labour's Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam), Richard Burgon (Leeds East), Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby), Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth), Clive Lewis (Norwich South), Rachael Maskell (York Central), Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East), Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East), Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill), Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston), and Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) also voted in favour of the amendment. Mr Hinchliff told the Commons that the fund was a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The money will help Natural England set up new environmental delivery plans (EDPs), which Mr Hinchliff said should come with a timeline for their implementation. He said the proposal will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.' Mr Hinchliff had also called for a residents' right of appeal against green-lit large developments, if they are not on sites which a council has set aside for building, and new town hall powers to block developers' plans, if they have failed to finish their previous projects. Mr Pennycook had earlier said the 'status quo' for the environment and development was not working, and instead proposed reforms which he described as a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The Nature Restoration Fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the Nature Restoration Fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which is set to get powers to acquire land compulsorily to put its EDPs into practice. Labour MP for Poole Neil Duncan-Jordan, who acted as a teller for the ayes to enable the vote to take place, criticised the Government's rhetoric, and argued it was 'too simplistic to argue that this is a debate of builders versus blockers'. He said 'there's no amount of killing badgers or red tape bonfires which is going to fix' what he described as a 'developer-led model' of planning, when housebuilders 'drip feed developments into the system, prioritising properties which maximise profit and are far from affordable for local people'. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing'. Conservative shadow housing minister Paul Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a Nature Restoration Fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Several MPs had called for swift bricks – hollow bricks where small birds can make their nests – in new builds, in amendments drafted by Labour's Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) and Barry Gardiner (Brent West), and Liberal Democrat housing spokesman Gideon Amos. At the despatch box, Mr Pennycook said that 'changing national planning policy is the more effective route to securing swift bricks as a standard feature of the vast majority of new builds', through a regularly updated set of planning rules. 'We are specifically giving consideration to using a new suite of national policies for decision making to require swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings unless there are compelling reasons which preclude their use, or which would make them ineffective,' the minister said. 'This would significantly strengthen the planning policy expectations already in place, meaning for example that we would expect to see at least one swift brick in all new brick-built houses.'
Sky News
6 hours ago
- Sky News
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 the plan 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: Treasury minister challenged over reason for U-turn 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 worried. 👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne's on your podcast app👈 Fifth, 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:UK to become 'AI maker not taker', says PMHow much cash will Reeves give each department? 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.
