Councillor Hughes moved,
and Councillor K Mitchell seconded a Notice of Motion in the
following terms: -
NOTICE OF MOTION BY COUNCILLOR HUGHES UNDER STANDING ORDER
NO.6
Council notes that:
The
Supreme Court, in the case of For Women Scotland v the Scottish
Ministers, ruled that the terms “man”,
“woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010
refer to ‘biological sex’, and that the Scottish
Government’s effort to increase women’s representation
on public boards therefore did not entail representation by trans
women with a Gender Recognition Certificate, as it had
intended.
A
Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) allows trans people to change
their birth certificate and their sex marker with HMRC. It is an
illegal practice under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 for an
employer to ask for an employee’s GRC.
Repeatedly misgendering someone, particularly a transgender
person, could be considered a form of harassment and direct
discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, although the law is
still evolving around this and is currently still
complex.
Interim guidance published by the Equality and Human Rights
Commission (EHRC) has suggested that trans women should not be
permitted to use women’s facilities, and trans men should not
be permitted to use men’s facilities, in workplaces and
services open to the public. This interim guidance is currently in
the process of being challenged by way of a claim for judicial
review by the Good Law Project. If the claimants are found to be
incorrect, then the submission is that the EHRC interim guidance is
incompatible with articles 8 and/or 14 of the European Convention
of Human Rights.
The
Supreme Court judgement, and following interim guidance from the
EHRC, has caused great anxiety, uncertainty, and fear for the
trans, non-binary, and intersex communities. It has also encouraged
open bigotry, and a further removal of safety measures for trans
and non-binary people in workplaces and public spaces due to a lack
of understanding of what this Supreme Court judgment actually
means.
The
law requiring respect for trans/non-binary rights has not changed.
The provisions of the Equality Act 2010 on protected
characteristics, associated case law, plus the Supreme Court has
reaffirmed that trans people’s rights must be respected under
the law.”
An amendment to the motion was
proposed by Councillor Wright calling to remove point 5 and to
remove “are women”, “are men”,
“and” from the first sentence of the motion. Councillor
Hughes accepted the amendment.
In presenting the motion,
Councillor Hughes made the following points:
- this motion was
important in the current climate;
- 47% of transgender
people had been sexually assaulted at some point in their life, and
78% had experienced sexual harassment;
- 35% of transgender
people had experienced physical assault;
- 12% of transgender
and non-binary individuals had experienced sexual
violence;
- 57% had experienced
mistreatment by Police;
- the Supreme Court had
been very clear that there was no legal requirement for single sex
facilities where there are cubicle toilets;
- regulations were
separate from Equality Act 2010, and there was no need for
establishments to change their approach as a result of this
judgement;
- transgender residents
of Exeter had experienced a multitude of incidents of
discrimination, abuse and hate crimes;
- Councillor Hughes had
received hate mail whilst being a councillor which was not
acceptable in our city;
- effective allyship
was needed more than ever;
- support for this
motion was support for transgender and non-binary communities in
Exeter; and
- any group
marginalisation impacts other marginalised groups.
During discussion, Members made
the following comments in support of the motion:
Councillor Knott:-
·
shared personal family experience of persecution and
bigotry of an LGBT+ person when sadly a motion such as this did not
exist;
·
that he was elected in 2022 when more did not vote
for him than did but he was committed to representing every
resident in his ward; and
·
this motion would mean that we recognise the LGBT+
community, embrace difference and take meaningful action to support
residents.
Councillor Begley:-
- was horrified by the
statistics shared by Councillor Hughes;
- believed that this
was an essential motion for Exeter;
- the Laurels was a
long established and well-respected NHS clinic operating locally
which Exeter was fortunate to have;
- in her own career she
had worked with adults struggling with gender
dysphoria;
- priority had to be
given to protecting those who were suffering; and
- motions like this
would make discrimination and prejudice as socially unacceptable as
racism, ableism, and misogyny.
Councillor Miller-Boam:-
- thanked Councillor
Hughes for this motion;
- discussed initiatives
in the city which they had attended, such as Exeter Queer Fest and
Exeter Pride;
- as a council we must
create an inclusive community for the LGBTQ+ community;
- trans people faced
discrimination and hostility and have disproportionately poor
access to public services;
- it was important to
wait for results of EHRC consultation before making any changes to
guidance and services provided; and
- wholeheartedly
supported the motion.
Councillor Wood:-
- thanked Councillor
Hughes for this motion, and for providing an opportunity to discuss
the topic at council and learn from others;
- discrimination of one
group led to discrimination of another was true;
- he was proud to live
in Exeter, and that the city contained a full spectrum of people;
and
- as well as
transgender and non-binary people existing, they also deserved
respect.
Councillor Wright: -
- thanked Councillor
Hughes and Councillor K Mitchell for their motion as it provided a
chance to reflect;
- she had known many
students during her career as a teacher and knew that they were not
able to get the support they needed;
- she hoped that this
motion would help within the transgender and non-binary community;
and
- she believed that the
LGBT+ were not a separate community but rather part of the Exeter
community.
Councillor Harding: -
- was pleased that
Councillor Hughes brought this motion to debate and vote
on;
- believed some voices
in media and politics sought to divide us;
- it was very important
that we as a council re-assert our support for transgender and
non-binary people; and
- he was supportive of
the shops in Exeter with LGBT stickers on the door and felt that it
showed Exeter was an inclusive place to be.
Councillor Vizard: -
- gave thanks to
Councillor Hughes;
- touched on Councillor
Wright’s amendment to the motion and re-stated that trans
women were women, trans men were men, and non-binary and intersex
people did exist; and
- that there was still
work to do, and it would be beneficial to work with the police to
support.
Councillor Bialyk: -
- felt that it was
important as the Leader of the Labour Group, and the Council to
make his position clear;
- he believed we needed
to have tolerance and respect;
- hoped it would not
take as long for transgender people to be fully as it had for other
groups.
Councillor Moore: -
- thanked Councillor
Hughes;
- praised Councillors
for sharing their personal experiences;
- social media abuse
had real life consequences, some of which had been mentioned during
this discussion; and
- she wanted Exeter to
be a welcome place for all.
Councillor K Mitchell, as
seconder, spoke in support of the motion making the following
comments: -
- gave thanks for the
contributions of members;
- this motion was
vitally important and the result of months of
discussion;
- Exeter was inclusive,
but there was still hatred;
- spoke of personal
experience of homophobia he faced in his time as Lord Mayor, and
emphasised that there was still prejudice within the city;
and
- he felt it was
vitally important for the council to make a statement.
Councillor Palmer spoke to
explain why she would be abstaining from the vote citing
professional reasons, and that she hoped to have an influence
professionally and wanted to thank those who had shared very
personal stories.
In summing up, Councillor
Hughes made the following points: -
- this motion was an
excellent example of cross-party work and lots of work had been
done by Councillor K Mitchell and the Labour Group;
- without Councillor K
Mitchell they may not have had the confidence to bring the motion
and it was helpful to have support and allyship of more experienced
councillors;
- they thanked
Councillor Knott for his unwavering support especially now that
they understood the context;
- that many people did
not understand the complexities of gender affirming
care;
- they reassured
Councillor Begley that Devon and Cornwall police showed clear
commitment to upholding laws that supported the LGBT+
community;
- clarified that LGBT+
was used instead of LGBTQ+ due to guidance provided by the Intercom
Trust;
- it was not enough to
be a safe space, and it needed to be a brave space;
- undermining the
feelings of young people could end lives;
- they felt that
messages coming from central government were similar to Section 28
but for transgender and non-binary people which was worrying;
and
- expressed
disappointment in Councillor Palmer for abstaining from the vote
but expressed respect for standing up and acknowledging the
personal stories that had been shared.
Councillor K Mitchell called
for a roll call vote on the motion; a named vote was recorded as
follows:
Voting for: -
Councillors Asvachin, Atkinson,
Banyard, Begley, Bialyk, Bennett, Cookson, Darling, Foale, Fulham,
Harding, Holland, Hughes. Hussain, Ketchin, Knott, Miller-Boam, K
Mitchell, M Mitchell, Moore, Patrick, Payne, Pole, Rees, Rolstone,
Snow, Vizzard, Wardle, Wetenhall, R Williams, Wood, Wright. (32
Members)
Voting Against: -
none
Abstentions: -
The Lord Mayor and Councillor
Palmer (2 Members)
Absent: -
Councillors Haigh, Parkhouse,
Read, Sheridan, and M Williams (5 Members)
Following a vote the motion as
amended was CARRIED.