Trade union bosses hit by furious backlash from activists after telling transgender women they must use men's toilets at annual conference
Trade union bosses have been hit by a furious backlash at their annual conference after telling transgender women they must use men's toilets.
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
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Critics warn Sir Keir's screeching welfare U-turn will now result in a 'two-tier' benefits system and a £3billion tax bombshell to pay for it
Sir Keir Starmer 's benefits climbdown will create a 'two-tier' benefits system with families facing a £3billion tax bombshell to pay for it, critics warned last night. And that will be on top of the £1.25billion bill caused by the Prime Minister's screeching U-turn over winter fuel payments for pensioners. Experts warned the £4.25billion black hole in the public finances caused by the backsliding will probably force Chancellor Rachel Reeves to plug it with more tax rises in her autumn Budget. The Prime Minister was humiliatingly forced to hand Labour 's welfare rebels the concessions in a bid to avoid defeat in a crunch vote on benefits cuts on Tuesday. The compromise deal last night looked like it had peeled off enough of the 126 rebels to pass the vote. However, as many as 50 were still threatening to rebel unless the vote was pulled. The reforms had originally been forecast to save the Government £5billion a year by the end of the Parliament. Charity bosses and Labour MPs still planning to rebel also warned the new proposals would create a 'two-tier' benefits system because existing Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants will keep their current level of disability payments. But new claimants after November 2026, when the changes are scheduled to kick in, would be entitled to as much as £4,000 a year less on average, even if they suffered from the same condition which meant they couldn't work. Before the U-turn, both existing and future claimants were facing stricter eligibility conditions for the daily living component of PIP, a working-age benefit for those whose health condition increases their living costs. The concessions on PIP alone protect some 370,000 people currently receiving the allowance who were set to lose out following reassessment. Meanwhile, existing claimants of the universal credit (UC) health element, paid to those with a condition which stops them working, will have their payments protected in real terms. However, new claimants will see it halved and frozen. According to calculations by the Resolution Foundation think tank, the PIP and UC reforms will cost £1.5billion each. Sir Keir yesterday branded his own climbdown 'common sense' and refused to rule out tax increases to pay for it in an interview. During a visit to RAF Valley in Wales, he said how the Government intended to pay for it would be revealed in the autumn Budget, adding: 'The changes still mean we can deliver the reforms that we need and that's very important because the system needs to be a system that is fit for the future. 'All colleagues are signed up to that, but having listened, we've made the adjustments. The funding will be set out in the Budget in the usual way.' Yesterday's climbdown is hugely embarrassing for Sir Keir as it highlights the scale to which he failed to read his MPs' mood over the proposed cuts, with rebels having spoken out for months. Care minister Stephen Kinnock dismissed criticism that the Government was in chaos and that Sir Keir was not 'competent', insisting that the process had been 'positive and constructive' and that the PM was someone who 'gets stuck into fixing problems'. Care minister Stephen Kinnock (pictured) dismissed criticism that the Government was in chaos and that Sir Keir was not 'competent', insisting that the process had been 'positive and constructive' and that the PM was someone who 'gets stuck into fixing problems' But Kemi Badenoch said the debacle left benefits claimants facing 'the worst of all worlds'. Speaking to reporters on a visit to North West Essex, the Tory leader said: 'I think we're seeing a government that is floundering, a government that is no longer in control despite having a huge majority. I don't see how they're going to be able to deliver any of the things they promised if they can't do something as basic as reducing an increase in spending. 'It's a real shame because what they're doing now with this U-turn is creating a two-tier system... this is the worst of all worlds.' Arch rebel Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, said: 'These revised proposals are nowhere near good enough, and frankly, are just not well thought through. It would create a two-tier system in both PIP and the Universal Credit health element based on when somebody became disabled.' Sir Mel Stride, the Shadow Chancellor, said: 'Labour promised not to raise taxes on working people, and their Jobs Tax has led to rising unemployment and growth being halved. Now the Government has been unable to rule out that taxes will go up this autumn in order to pay for Keir Starmer's latest U-turns.'
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Justin Welby fails to surprise with no hope for Pope
Justin Welby may have said that his ousting as Archbishop of Canterbury was based on a flawed report, but he is courting less controversy by asserting that he is unlikely to become Pope. Asked what his papal name would be, he opted for either Hadrian or Francis, but was keen to stress that a Welby papacy would be unlikely. 'I have had six children, therefore there is some evidence that I've not been entirely celibate,' he said, adding that he was also a 'lousy theologian'. Still, this needn't rule him out as a Pope, if the Borgias were anything to go by. Welby remarked: 'It was a Borgia who said, 'Since God has given us the papacy, we may as well enjoy it'. ' Glastonbury brings together the revolutionaries and the posh, and this year is throwing together particularly strange bedfellows. The other night, the same backstage VIP bar was frequented by the controversial band Kneecap and the uncontroversial Samantha Cameron. It's not like they have nothing in common, though. For instance, as she was a PM's wife, both have benefited from government money. Jeffrey Archer's success is not as impressive as it sounds. The former Tory MP's first novel, Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less, is still topping bestsellers' lists after racking up 25,000 sales last month, but he points out that this is worldwide and it's not all that impressive when you divide it by 151 countries. 'I got a call from Iceland saying your latest book is number one in the bestsellers' list,' he tells the Rosebud podcast. Archer, right, was filled with pride, until he asked how many copies had taken him to this giddy height. The answer was 83. Much excitement on the left this week about the potential for a new Jeremy Corbyn-led party. Many are saying that polls have shown it would get 10 per cent of the vote, but the pollster Joe Twyman offers a note of caution. 'May I gently suggest that 'would' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here,' he said. 'I say that as the official pollster for Change UK.' It is official — politicians don't talk like humans. A study to be published in Comparative Political Studies has found that politicians' speeches become more interminable as soon as they are elected. The study looked at 1.5 million extracts from speeches by Danish parliamentarians across a quarter of a century from 1997. It found that the speeches became less readable after the speaker was elected but this reverted as soon as their career ended. It's cited by the political scientist Philip Cowley in his latest for The House. 'You campaign in poetry, govern in prose,' he says, 'but even the prose suffers when in office.' With books like his new history of St Petersburg, the author Sinclair McKay has become an adept copy editor, but he learnt the craft the hard way. He used to be a diarist and tells me he got into terrible trouble when he wrote a piece about the political salon host Lady Carla Powell. She was furious about one word. He admits it was probably an error to call her 'fawnlike' in the first place, but what was worse was that he also got the third letter wrong and had to explain to Powell that he hadn't meant to suggest she was half-man, half-goat.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Benefits U-turn raises questions about Labour's long-term plan
About a quarter of the working age population - those aged 16 to 64 - do not currently have a job. Caring responsibilities and ill health are the most common reasons given by those who would like a four-year mandate and a towering majority, Labour might have been expected to have invested in a long-term plan to help those who are sick get back into the workforce, at least part-time. It may have cost up front, but in the future it could have delivered big its determination to avoid a repeat of the Liz Truss mini-budget led them to target big savings quickly - but it ended up causing perhaps even more trouble, with the government performing a spectacular U-turn to avoid a mass Labour raises significant questions, not just about how this year-old government manages its affairs day to day, but if its overall strategy to renew the country is on track. Long-term reform vs short-term savings The government was adamant that its "welfare reform" changes - announced in March's Green Paper - were designed to get people back to bulk of planned savings came from tightening the eligibility for Personal Independence Payments (Pip), which are paid to support people who face extra costs due to disability, regardless of whether or not they are in work. Independent experts questioned whether more of the savings should have been redeployed to help people with ill health ease back in to the workforce, for example part time. That could mean support such as potential employer subsidies - especially to help get younger people into work and pay taxes, rather than claim benefits long term. It could also help fill jobs - a win win for rebels argued that the upfront cuts were aimed at filling a Budget hole against the Chancellor's self imposed borrowing rules. Their central criticism was that this was an emergency cost-cutting is true that the Chancellor's Budget numbers were blown off course by higher borrowing costs, such as those emanating from US President Donald Trump's shock tariffs, so she bridged the borrowing gap with these cuts. The welfare reform plan to save £5bn a year by 2029-30 helped Chancellor Rachel Reeves meet her "non negotiable" borrowing rules. Indeed when the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which monitors the spending plans, said they would not in fact raise enough money, Reeves announced more welfare cuts on the day of the Spring main point was to raise money to help close the gap in the Budget tell me that the welfare reform plan was in fact brought forward for this purpose. But this was still not a full programme of welfare reform designed to deal with a structural issue of rising health-related claims. 'Top slicing never works' The former Conservative Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan Smith resigned as work and pensions secretary almost ten years ago, saying a similar plan to cut disability benefits was "indefensible".He says the cuts should have formed part of "a wider process" of finding the best way to focus resources on those most in need."Top slicing never works," he says of plans to extract savings from the welfare budget without its heart the problem is perceived to be that the current welfare structure has become overly binary, failing to accommodate a growing demographic who should be able to do at least a bit of work. This rigidity - what ministers refer to as a "hard boundary" - inadvertently pushes individuals towards declaring complete unfitness for work, and can lead to total dependence on welfare, particularly universal credit health (UC Health), rather than facilitating a gradual transition back into some leading experts this is, in fact, the biggest cause of the increase in health-related welfare claims. The pandemic may have accelerated the trend, but it started a decade proportion of working age people claiming incapacity benefit had fallen well below 5% in 2015, now it's 7%.The pandemic period exacerbated the rise as ill health rose and many claims were agreed without face-to-face meetings. These claims were also increasingly related to mental ill health. One former minister, who did not wanted to be named, said the system had effectively broken down."The real trouble is people are learning to game the Pip questionnaire with help from internet sites," he says. "It's pretty straightforward to answer the questions in a way that gets the points."As he puts it, the UK is "at the extreme of paying people for being disabled" with people getting money rather than equipment such as wheelchairs as occurs in other most kinds of mental ill health, in kind support, such as therapies, would make more sense than cash transfers, he some disability campaigners have said that being offered vouchers instead of cash payments and thereby removing people's automony over spending, is "an insult" and "dangerous". These pressures can be seen in the nature of the compromise planned cuts to Pip payments will now only apply to new claimants from November next year, sparing 370,000 current claimants out of the 800,000 expected to be affected by the Meg Hillier, Labour MP and chair of the Commons Treasury committee, along with other rebels, have also pointed out that the application of the new four-point threshold for Pip payments will be designed together with disability is a fair assumption that this so called "co-production" may enable more future claimants to retain this universal credit, the government had planned to freeze the higher rate for existing health-related claimants but the payments will now rise in line with inflation. And for future claimants of universal credit, the most severe cases will be spared from a planned halving of the payments, worth an average of £3,000 per these calculations don't take into account the effects of £1bn the government has pulled forward to spend to help those with disabilities and long-term health conditions find work as swiftly as possible. This originally wasn't due to come in until 2029. This change does help Labour's argument that the changes are about reform rather than cost cutting. But this is still not fully fledged radical reform on the scale that is needed to tackle a social, fiscal and economic crisis. The OBR has not yet done the Keep Britain Working review, led by former John Lewis boss Sir Charlie Mayfield, which was commissioned by the government to look into the role of employers in health and disability, has not yet been the Netherlands, where a similar challenge was tackled two decades ago, their system makes employers responsible for the costs of helping people back into work for the first two businesses are concerned about the costs of tax, wages and employment rights policies. And there is already a fundamental question about whether the jobs are out there to support sick workers back into the workforce. Tax rises or other spending cuts The Institute for Fiscal Studies and Resolution Foundation think tanks have estimated the government's U-turn could cost £3bn, meaning Chancellor Rachel Reeves will either have to increase taxes in the autumn budget or cut spending elsewhere if she is to meet her self-imposed spending the income tax threshold freeze again, seems a plausible plan There are still a few months to go, so the Treasury might hope that growth is sustained and that borrowing costs settle, helping with the OBR numbers. It will not be lost on anyone that the precise cause of all this, however, was a hasty effort to try to bridge this same Budget rule maths gap that emerged in questions arise about just how stability and credibility-enhancing it really is to tweak fiscal plans every six months to hit Budget targets that change due to market conditions, with changes that cannot be ultimately idea floated by the International Monetary Fund that these Budget adjustments are only really needed once a year must seem quite attractive today. Is Britain getting sicker? And then there are bigger questions left Britain really fundamentally sicker than it was a decade ago, and if it is, does society want to continue current levels of support? If the best medicine really is work, as some suggest, then can employers cope, and will there be enough jobs?Or was it the system itself - previous welfare cuts - that caused the ramp up in claims in recent years, requiring a more thought-through type of reform? Should support for disability designed to help with the specific costs of physical challenges be required at similar levels by those with depression or anxiety?Dare this government make further changes to welfare? And, in pursuing narrow Budget credibility, has it lost more political credibility without actually being able to pass its plans into law?The government is not just boxed in. It seems to have created one of those magician's tricks where they handcuff themselves behind their backs in a locked box - only they lack the escape skills of a Houdini or will be relief that the markets are calm for now, with sterling and stock markets at multi-year highs. But an effort to close a Budget gap, has ended up with perhaps even more fundamental questions about how and if the government can get things done. BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
