Commons forced to apologise after allowing a transgender woman to use female-only toilets despite Supreme Court ruling
The House of Commons has been forced to apologise after allowing a transgender woman to use female-only toilets despite the recent Supreme Court ruling that protects single-sex spaces.
Robin Moira White, a trans barrister who is a biological male, was directed to use the ladies' loos in Portcullis House last week after attending a meeting of the women and equalities committee in which the landmark judgment was discussed.
White, 61, said parliamentary employees had been told that swift access to the lavatories was required because of a health condition.
But the barrister, who was shown to the closest ones to the Thatcher Room, where the committee had met, was challenged outside the facilities by women's rights campaigners, Kate Harris and Heather Binning, who had attended the same hearing.
Harris said that a staff member told her 'We don't do that here' in reference to excluding trans women from female loos.
She added: 'We were in the mother of all parliaments, and it was not adhering to the law. It was not the fault of staff, who clearly have not been trained in how to deal with these issues.'
White accused the two women of 'embarrassing' behaviour and 'shouting' during the confrontation, a claim Harris has denied.
She said: 'They rather rudely started to cross-examine me about what my intentions were, and what I was going to do. I had to go [to use the lavatory] so went to use the facilities and they continued shouting [while I was inside].'
Just before the confrontation, the committee had heard evidence from Baroness Falkner, the chair of the equality watchdog the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), about the Supreme Court ruling. In April judges ruled that the legal definition of a woman should be based on biological sex.
In an email sent to Harris and Binning on Thursday afternoon, a senior staff member in the House of Commons wrote: 'We acknowledge that it is likely the individual you complained about should have not been directed to the female facilities and we apologise for that.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Whitehall launches hunt for mole who leaked Hermer's Iran advice
The Government has launched an official hunt for the Whitehall mole who leaked Lord Hermer's legal advice on Iran. The Cabinet Office's Propriety and Ethics Team (PET) has been instructed to carry out an official leak inquiry after it was reported that the Attorney General did not believe the UK should join Israeli strikes on Iran. On Wednesday The Spectator said Lord Hermer had told Downing Street that he had ' concerns about the UK playing any role in this except for defending our allies'. The Telegraph understands the advice was given after Israel's first attack on Iranian nuclear facilities last Thursday, although it was not reported for another six days. Lord Hermer was concerned that the UK might breach international law if it joined Israel in striking Iran directly. The United Nations Charter says that countries can only launch an attack in self-defence, to defend an ally, or if the UN Security Council passes a resolution authorising military action. The leak has placed Lord Hermer in a difficult position because he is not allowed to discuss the content of his advice and Downing Street is keen to avoid any public discussion of its plans in the Middle East. The disclosure came as Donald Trump was considering sending an American 'bunker buster' bomb into Iran to destroy a nuclear fuel enrichment facility in northwestern Iran. In response, No 10 urged world leaders to keep 'cool heads' and said that it maintained a policy of 'de-escalation'. The UK has not participated in any offensive action against Iran, nor defended Israel, since the latest round of the conflict began. While it is commonplace for the Attorney General, the government's chief law officer, to give an opinion on defence policy as ministers draw up their response to a crisis, the advice must be kept a secret. The Ministerial Code, the official handbook for serving in government says that 'the fact that the Law Officers have advised or have not advised, and the content of their advice, must not be disclosed outside government without their authority'. The Cabinet Office's team will now attempt to find the leaker, who may be one of the officials or ministers who attended official meetings about the Middle East conflict on Thursday or Friday last week. Lord Hermer's legal advice has previously attracted criticism after sources said he was acting as a 'freeze on government' by trying to block various government policies on legal grounds. He has also been criticised for controversial clients he represented while working as a barrister, including the alleged terrorist Abu Zubaydah and Gerry Adams. The Labour peer is a former human rights lawyer and long-time friend of Sir Keir Starmer. His position on the Israel-Iran conflict has since been backed by Left-wing Labour MPs, including Dame Emily Thornberry, the former shadow attorney general and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. She said on Thursday that 'any of those justifications' for war in the UN Charter do not apply because the UK is 'not under threat ourselves,' an air strike would not be defensive and there is no Security Council resolution. Downing Street, the Cabinet Office and the Attorney General's Office declined to comment.
Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Stephen Fry says JK Rowling's been ‘radicalised'. I've got just one question for him
Sir Stephen Fry, the renowned psychoanalyst, says he believes that JK Rowling 'has been radicalised'. I must say that I for one was somewhat taken aback by this diagnosis. Because, if Ms Rowling has indeed been 'radicalised', that means she harbours beliefs that are 'radical'. In which case, would Sir Stephen be so kind as to tell us which of her beliefs he has in mind? Take, for example, Ms Rowling's belief that women don't have testicles. Or her belief that men can't give birth. Is either of those beliefs radical? Extreme? Wildly at variance with established medical science? Perhaps he's thinking of her belief that biological males should not be entitled to enter the female changing room at their local swimming pool and strip naked in front of small girls. Or her belief that confused children should not be pumped with drugs designed to prevent them from going through a normal, healthy puberty. Or her belief that we should not grant a convicted rapist his wish to be placed in a jail full of women merely because he's suddenly taken to sporting a blonde wig and pink leggings. Does Sir Stephen consider those beliefs to be radical? I do hope he'll let us know. It's urgent. Otherwise, there's a serious risk that innocent members of the public will become radicalised, too. In the meantime, I'm anxious to ascertain how exactly Ms Rowling came to fall for the outlandish notion that women are female and men are male. Who radicalised her? Sir Stephen reckons it was 'Terfs' (i.e., trans-exclusionary radical feminists). But I wonder if she was brainwashed at an early age – by, say, an O-level biology teacher. Or perhaps some appallingly irresponsible school librarian gave her access to a dictionary. Whatever the source of her indoctrination, I dread to think what crazed ideological nonsense this dangerous woman will pollute our children's minds with next. The Earth is round? Water is wet? Members of the family Ursidae typically defecate in arboreal environs? Then again, I suppose there is an alternative way to look at this story. Which is that the beliefs Ms Rowling espouses have been completely mainstream since the dawn of humanity – and that it is, in fact, her opponents who have been 'radicalised'. Just a thought. Lost in translation A 29-year-old Afghan asylum seeker, we learnt this week, attempted to defend his rape of a 15-year-old Scottish girl by claiming that he had not been 'educated' about the 'significant cultural differences' between Afghanistan and Britain. As it turned out, the court didn't buy this excuse. Which is a relief. After all, doesn't his argument imply that Britain was somehow at fault, for failing to 'educate' him about these 'differences' when he arrived? God only knows what he thinks the authorities should have said, the day his dinghy washed up here in 2023. 'Good afternoon, sir, and welcome to our country! Please do make yourself at home. But, if you don't mind, we'd just like to help you fit in by giving you a quick introduction to a few traditional British customs. 'Number one: we're completely obsessed with talking about the weather! Number two: we drink endless cups of tea! Number three: we all absolutely love the adorable adventures of Paddington bear! 'Oh, and number four: we generally tend to frown on grown men who rape children in the street. 'We appreciate, sir, that as a newcomer you may find this a touch puzzling. But then, all cultures have their distinctive little quirks and foibles, don't they? And 'not sexually assaulting terrified pubescent girls' just happens to be one of ours. So we thought we'd better give you a little heads-up, to save you from making a rather embarrassing faux pas! 'Of course, there are some people in our country who have been known to disregard the above convention. Late BBC disc jockeys, for example, and Pakistani grooming gangs. The feeling among the wider British public, though, is that it's still something of a no-no, and best avoided. After all, you can't be certain that our police, social workers and politicians will cover it up for you! I mean, they might, but it's not guaranteed. 'Anyway, thanks for listening, sir, and have a lovely new life! The hotel's this way, we'll just come and check you in.' A question of Pride LGBT Pride is about to enter its fourth week. Best wishes to all who are still celebrating. I hope no one will be offended, however, if I respectfully ask why this event now has to last for an entire month. It does feel like quite a long time. Especially when you compare the lengths of certain other annual events. For example, we have Pride month – but Remembrance fortnight. So we now spend twice as long waving rainbow flags as we do honouring those who died defending us. There's nothing hateful about suggesting that Pride has started to drag on a bit. When people complain about shops putting their festive decorations up in September, it doesn't mean they hate Christmas. It just means they think Christmas should last 12 days, not four months. Mind you, there are now so many different groups under the LGBTQIA+ umbrella, I suppose it takes about a month just to list them all.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Peers clash with Esther Rantzen over plans to delay and change assisted dying bill
Dame Esther Rantzen has been told she does not understand how British parliamentary democracy works after she suggested that members of the House of Lords should not hold up the assisted dying legislation. Kim Leadbeater 's bill passed by a narrow majority of just 23 on its final third reading vote in the Commons on Friday but now faces a long haul in the Lords as peers prepare to lay down hundreds of amendments. There is a danger that the bill will get held up so much that it will not have time to pass into law and Dame Esther hit out at peers who effectively want to use procedure to ensure it falls. Speaking on Radio 4's Today Programme the 85-year-old TV personality who has a terminal cancer diagnosis said: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. "Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. "So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through." But a senior Tory peer and opponent of assisted dying Lord Stewart Jackson has hit back telling The Independent that Dame Esther does not understand how parliament works. "Our system doesn't work like that,' he said. 'The House of Lords is quite within its constitutional rights and privileges to amend or delay a Bill which was never put to the people in a manifesto, backed by only a minority of MPs, was poorly drafted, rushed and barely scrutinised and will have hugely profound effects on vulnerable people and the resources of the NHS." Meanwhile, another opponent, former Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, also made it clear she intends to bring in a large number of changes to the Bill. Speaking on BBC Breakfast, she said: "I mean, currently it can be offered to people with learning disabilities without training. There's loopholes on anorexia. "And I think there are loopholes around children - a young person only has to say the conversation started on their 18th birthday, and that's it." She said people are "scared" on both sides of the debate, adding: "I think we have to find a way through this. "That's actually the Lords' job, you know, the Lords is there to amend, it's there to improve, and it's there to try and sort of reconcile lots of different, very complicated views. Baroness Grey-Thompson added: "I'm worried about disabled people. This Bill is not going to take place in isolation of the swingeing government cuts that we're expecting around disability and the welfare system has to be reformed."
