Notice of Motion by Councillor Hughes under Standing Order No. 6
Motion: Supreme Court Motion
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.
A recent Galop survey found that two-thirds of LGBT+ respondents had experienced anti-LGBT+ violence or abuse, and abuse is particularly severe for trans people.
The LGBT+ community are more likely to experience disproportionately poor health outcomes, workplace conflict, homeless, and difficulties accessing public services. This includes the LGBT+ community in our city of Exeter.
Council believes:
Minutes:
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: