Agenda item

Notice of Motion by Councillor Hughes under Standing Order No. 6

Meeting of Council, Tuesday 22nd July 2025 6.00 pm (Item 65a)

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:

Trans women are women, trans men are men, and non-binary and intersex people exist and deserve recognition.
Everyone should be safe and free to be themselves, without fear of hostility or violence, and the erosion of trans rights threatens everyone’s rights – especially women and girls.
Nobody’s life chances should be limited or determined because of their sexual orientation or gender identity or gender expression.
The trans community deserve clarity and reassurance on how their rights will be protected.
Parliament must act to clarify how Gender Recognition Certificates interact with the Equality Act 2010, ensuring that Gender Recognition Certificates recognise trans people’s gender identities for all purposes under the law.

Council resolves to:

Affirm our support for trans, non-binary, and gender-diverse residents and our commitment to defending their rights and dignity.
Instruct the Chief Executive / Leader of the Council to write to the Minister for Women and Equalities to make clear the position of this council and to ask the following:
1. how existing legislation will protect the rights of trans, non-binary, and intersex people.
2. What new legislation is envisaged?
Not alter guidance for staff or the provision of services in light of the Supreme Court judgement whilst the EHRC guidance is interim and under consultation.
Not make any changes to current provision without first seeking legal advice, including checking in with the progress of The Good Law Project judicial review.
Commit to providing gender-neutral bathrooms and changing room facilities, such as those at ECC owned and designed St Sidwell’s Point, separate to and including similar facilities for disabled people.
Commit to ensuring that Exeter is welcoming and inclusive to the LGBT+ community, embracing difference and ensuring action to ensure the safety of all residents.

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:

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.