“For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling

17:30:00

With permission, I will now make a statement to update the House on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers. This ruling brings welcome clarity and confidence for women and service providers. Single-sex spaces must be protected, and this is personal to me; before I was elected to this place, I ran a women’s refuge in the north-east for women and children fleeing domestic violence. I know how important to survivors it is, and always was, to have single-sex spaces based on biology —places of safety after trauma, time in a sanctuary that allowed them therapeutic support, healing from unimaginable male violence and fear. I remember how hard countless campaigners had to fight over many decades to get any single-sex provision at all, in order to create women’s refuges and rape crisis centres. Later, I remember how hard it was to convince commissioners that young homeless women trying to heal from terrifying acts of cruelty should not be left in mixed-sex accommodation. I will continue to fight for that provision to ensure that women’s safety, women’s privacy and women’s dignity are always protected. This Government will continue as before, working to protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex— now with the added clarity of this ruling—and we will continue our wider work with commitment and compassion to protect all those who need it, right across society. This is a Government who will support the rights of women and trans people, now and always. This is a Government who will support the rights of all people with protected characteristics, now and always. This is a Government who will support the rights of our most vulnerable, now and always. On that, there is no change to announce: dignity and respect for all, now and always. But this is a judgment long in the making. It began in 2018 when Scottish Ministers issued guidance on the definition of a woman in the eyes of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. That guidance stated that a woman in that Act bears the same meaning as a woman in the Equality Act 2010, and included trans women with a gender recognition certificate.[Official Report, 24 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 12WC.] (Correction) For Women Scotland challenged that guidance, saying that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex, so that a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate is a man for the purposes of the Act. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and last week, the court ruled that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. This means that a person will be considered as their biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act, regardless of whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate. I know that the women who brought this challenge have not always been treated with the respect they deserve. This Government believe in freedom of speech and in the fundamental right to protest, but in no way does that extend to criminal damage. There can be no excuse for defaced statues of feminist icons, no excuse for threats, and no excuse for harassment. Such acts seek to drag down the debate, away from common sense and the sensible view—held by the majority of the British public—that women need single-sex spaces, that those spaces should be protected, and that we can protect those spaces while treating trans people with respect as well. As such, the certainty that this judgment brings is welcome. Now, it is time to move forward. There is now a need to ensure that this ruling is clear across a range of settings, from healthcare and prisons to sport and single-sex support groups. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, as Britain’s equality regulator, is working quickly to issue an updated statutory code of practice to reflect this judgment, and I look forward to reviewing that code of practice in due course. Alongside these updates, our work to protect single-sex spaces across society continues in earnest, because for far too long, under the Conservative Government, single-sex spaces were anything but—and nowhere is that clearer than in our hospitals. Year after year, the Conservatives pledged to close mixed-sex wards; and yet year after year, their use not only persisted but grew massively. Year after year, often in their most vulnerable moments, women were denied the privacy and dignity they deserved. Time after time, Conservative Ministers, including the now Leader of the Opposition, came to this House and toured television studios telling the public that they were protecting single-sex spaces in our hospitals. The truth was very different, because as last year’s data tells us, the use of mixed-sex wards rose by more than 2,200% in 10 years under the last Tory Government. There is no better example of rhetoric divorced from reality and of a party playing politics with the safety of women, and we will never let them forget it. By contrast, this Government will protect women’s wards and NHS England will soon publish guidance on how trans patients should be accommodated in clinical settings. We will end the practice of mixed-sex wards once and for all. It is not just in our NHS that we will act on behalf of women. In prisons, we will continue to protect women’s safety with single-sex accommodation. In women’s sport, I have always backed integrity and fairness. Biology matters for competitive sport, and sporting bodies have issued rules to reflect that. In our prisons, in our hospitals, in sport and in a whole host of other spaces, what was true before the ruling remains true after the ruling. This Government protect safe spaces for women under the Equality Act 2010. For too many years, we have seen the heat dialled up in this debate by the Conservatives. There was no real action to protect women’s spaces, while under their watch the use of mixed-sex wards increased, an epidemic of violence against women and girls spread across the country and women’s health was neglected. This Labour Government will deliver for women through our plan for change, driving down waiting lists month after month, tackling misogyny throughout society, and once and for all delivering justice for survivors of violence against women and girls. I know that many trans people will be worried in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, so I want to provide reassurance here and now that trans people will continue to be protected. We will deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We will work to equalise all existing strands of hate crime, and we will review adult gender identity services, so that all trans people get the high-quality care they deserve. The laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place, and trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment—a protected characteristic written into Labour’s Equality Act. This Government will offer trans people the dignity that too often they were denied by the Conservatives. Too often, trans people were a convenient punchbag and the butt of jokes made in this place by the Conservatives, culminating rather shamefully in the previous Prime Minister standing at this Dispatch Box trying to score cheap laughs from his Back Benchers at the expense of vulnerable people. By contrast, this Government are clear that trans people deserve safety, opportunity and respect. This verdict is about clarity and coherence in the eyes of the law, but the Supreme Court judges delivered along with that verdict a vital reminder: this is not about the triumph of one group at the expense of another. It is not about winners or losers, and it is not about us or them. That is the message I want to reinforce today in this House. Everyone in our society deserves dignity and respect. Those values are not and never will be a zero-sum battle. Dignity and respect for all—those are the values that lift us up and set us free. Those are the values that define and distinguish any modern and compassionate society. Those are the values that this Government will do everything to promote and protect, now and always. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

17:39:00

I thank the Minister for Women and Equalities for advance sight of her statement, even if it was mostly a shameless work of fiction. I could not believe my eyes, or my ears, this afternoon. In 2021 the Prime Minister said it was “not right” to say that only women have a cervix. In 2022 he said it was the law that “trans women are women”. In 2023 he said, “99% of women don’t have a penis”. I know what a woman is, and I always have. The people of this country know what a woman is. We did not need the Supreme Court to tell us that, but this Government did: a Labour Government so desperate to jump on a bandwagon that they abandoned common sense, along with the Scottish National party—which put rapists in women’s prisons—and, of course, the Liberal Democrats. The Supreme Court ruling is a powerful victory for the determined women behind For Women Scotland, and for people all over the UK who know how important it is to give privacy and dignity to women and girls who need it, but it follows years of battle. Individual women took action to uphold the law at great personal cost, losing their jobs and their reputations. A few weeks ago I met the Darlington nurses who were forced to bring legal action after a male nurse started using their changing room. Even their union, the Royal College of Nursing, refused to represent them. Women should not have to battle the NHS or their employers through the courts. Why has it been such a battle? Because something as simple as biological reality became politicised and corrupted by activists pushing this ideology as foolish politicians cheered. Even the Minister—who said in her statement that this was “personal” to her—stated just last year that men should access women’s spaces. Whether it is female victims in our courts being forced to refer to their male sex attackers as “she” or the NHS using confusing “gender-neutral” language, putting the health of women at risk, this is a serious matter. At every point when we have fought for women, we have faced hostility from activist groups and the Labour party: in 2020, when we rejected Labour’s calls to introduce self-identification, and in 2021, when the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), ordered police forces to stop recording offences by trans women in female crime statistics. The current Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), said that crimes committed by men should be recorded how they wished, and that those convicted of serious sexual offences should be held in jails that matched their chosen gender. It was crazy then, and it is crazy now. I spent years battling abuse from Labour Members as I fought to uphold biological sex in government and blocked the SNP’s introduction of its mad self-identity laws, and I will take no lectures from them about what to do on this issue. Women and gay rights groups such as the LGB Alliance were even refused stands at the Labour party conference. The idea that Labour has supported this all along is for the birds. The Foreign Secretary described opponents of self-ID as “dinosaurs”. Labour now says that it knows what a woman is, and that transgender people should use services and facilities designated for their biological sex. It has never said that before, and this is a U-turn, but we welcome it. Now that we have legal clarity, will the Prime Minister show some courage and do the right thing? Will he apologise to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who faced so many security concerns as she was hounded out by the Labour party, and who was rebuked by the Prime Minister, and by many Labour MPs who are sitting there looking at me, for stating what the Supreme Court has now ruled to be true? Will the Minister apologise to the hon. Member for Canterbury? I doubt it. Will the Prime Minister crack down on the groups whom we saw defacing statues of suffragists over the weekend with the same energy that he reserves for his political opponents, or will we see more two-tier justice? Last time we saw Labour MPs standing next to them with no rebuke whatsoever. Will the Minister ensure that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has the Government’s full support in its enforcement of the code of practice? In particular, will she condemn the Labour Ministers who described Baroness Falkner’s entirely correct position on the judgment as “appalling”? We need to root out gender ideology from our institutions. This Government now have a serious job to do, as many organisations will still fail women. I ask the following questions. As Minister for Women and Equalities, I published guidance for schools that made it clear that toilets and changing rooms must be provided separately for girls and boys, but the Minister scrapped that guidance. Will she stand up to the unions and urgently publish what she now admits is the law? She has also scrapped relationships, sex and health education guidance that would prevent schools from teaching contested gender ideology as fact. Will she now publish the guidance, and remove materials that mis-state the law? Will she act to stop passports and licences being issued with information on them about self-declared, rather than legal, sex? Will the Government support our amendments to the data Bill to ensure that digital ID systems record biological sex accurately? Finally, the Minister says that she is here to protect transgender people, many of whom were misled by Labour’s mis-statements on this issue. Some are now left very anxious. She has not provided any reassurance, and she should not use them as a shield to protect her failure. This is not the end of the matter, but the beginning of the end. There is so much to do, and the Conservative party, under my leadership, will be relentless in ensuring that the Government do the right thing.

I am delighted to see the right hon. Lady in her place today. Many would run from a record like hers on these matters, but not the right hon. Lady. She and the Conservative party had 14 years to provide clarity on the issues that they now claim to take an interest in. The Supreme Court has confirmed that Labour’s Equality Act 2010 is the basis for single-sex spaces and protection, but the Conservatives did not provide that clarity. Before I say a bit more about her record, I will say a little more about mine. I will come to the questions—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Lady has some patience, I will respond to her questions. I have supported countless women and children fleeing appalling male violence, sexual violence and domestic abuse. I have campaigned for decades on women’s rights. I know more than most about the importance of spaces for women—I have fought for them, I have delivered them and I have run them. While I was running a refuge, and while Labour was delivering the groundbreaking Equality Act, which, as this ruling confirms, sets in law the basis for single-sex spaces, what was the Leader of the Opposition doing? Forever the keyboard warrior, she was busy hacking the website of the leading architect of the Equality Act, and she has learned nothing from her party’s crushing electoral defeat last year. She held the post of Minister for Women and Equalities for two years and did precisely nothing. She provided no clarity in the law and nothing to improve the lives of women, which got materially worse on her watch. The right hon. Lady comes here claiming to speak for women, but let us look at her record and her party’s record. There has been an increase in stalking offences. Prosecutions and convictions for domestic abuse have nearly halved since 2015. The rape charge rate is at a record low. Survivors of sexual violence are waiting years for justice. There has been a 2,000% increase in the use of mixed-sex wards in only 10 years. That is the Conservatives’ record. The right hon. Lady asks about the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s statutory code of practice. I have set out that I am expecting an updated version of that as soon as possible. I will work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to implement the code of practice, to make sure that everyone has the clarity that they require, and I expect the EHRC to work quickly and thoroughly on this matter. The right hon. Lady asks about gender-questioning guidance and RSHE guidance. I am afraid that too is simply laughable. Mere months before the election was called, the Conservatives published a version of the draft guidance for gender-questioning children. Since that time, we have had the final review by Dr Hilary Cass published. It is right that we ensure that the guidance aligns with Dr Cass’s final review. On the RSHE guidance, the consultation concluded after the election. We could not be clearer that we will always protect single-sex spaces, and we Labour Members are focused on delivering for women. Whereas the Leader of the Opposition has described maternity pay as “excessive” and called the minimum wage “harmful”, we are improving protections for pregnant women at work. We are ensuring that women can take maternity leave and come back to good, secure jobs. We are expanding childcare, the first 750 new free breakfast clubs opened today, and we have brought forward the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation to protect young women and girls. It is Labour’s groundbreaking Equality Act that provides the basis for what we have set out today about single-sex spaces for biological women. This Labour Government have a plan for change; a plan that will deliver for women. It is time for the Conservative party to get offline and get on board.

I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

Far from this ruling providing clarity, trans, intersex and non-binary people are instead anxious and unsure about where this ruling leaves them, legally and practically, as they go about their lives. Does the Minister recognise that this ruling was made without a single contribution from trans people? Will she ensure that trans, intersex and non-binary people are involved in any upcoming new guidance, and if so, how?

I believe that this ruling provides much-needed clarity. I do recognise the Chair of the Select Committee’s concern about ensuring that all people are treated with dignity and respect, including trans people. My expectation is that the EHRC, in the development of the code of practice and the guidance, will engage with a range of stakeholders with different views, and will then set out that work in full.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. Of course, I respect the independence of the Supreme Court and the ruling it has made, interpreting the law as it stands, just as I respect the concerns of many women, and the now increased fears of the LGBT community. I also respect what the Minister had to say about her experience of working in a refuge, and I agree that there is no length to which we should not go to ensure protection for women who are in the situation that she describes. However, given what she said, I am sure that she will agree with me that that should not come at the cost of the human rights and the security of another vulnerable group in society, which is what this ruling threatens to bring about. Could she explain where transgender people fleeing violence can now go for refuge, if they are to be completely excluded from refuges? For years, we have had this intolerable debate, in which two vulnerable groups have been pitted against each other. Those two groups are afraid of the same thing—violence, mostly from men. The challenge for this Labour Government is to live up to the spirit of perhaps one of the proudest achievements of a previous Labour Government—the Equality Act—and protect everyone. If this Government are not able to do that, does the Minister think it would be acceptable to see trans women forced into men’s toilets, to face goodness knows what sort of aggression, and potentially violence, there? Will she confirm what she says about protecting trans rights? We need some leadership from this Government. I have written to the Minister and asked her if we will see legislation that gives that protection, because we must remember that what we are dealing with here is not hypothetical. It is about real lives, real fears and real concerns among the LGBT community. Equality and human rights should never be the preserve of one—

Order.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. As she says, she has written to me on this topic, and I or a member of the ministerial team would be happy to meet her to discuss this further. Where we can agree is that dignity and respect should be for all in our country—for women and for trans people—and trans people should not face discrimination or harassment on the basis of who they are. However, I believe that ensuring a society that treats everyone with dignity and respect is entirely compatible with ensuring that single-sex spaces can continue to exist for biological women who require safety and dignity, particularly following periods of terrible abuse. It is important that services are available for trans people in addition, and it is often the case that those services are much better provided by those with the specialist knowledge and expertise to deliver them. I agree that this should not be seen as a conflict. The ruling from the Supreme Court, while being clear about the importance of biological sex, was at pains to stress that trans people do retain clear protections in law, and should be able to live their life free of harassment and discrimination.

I have already been contacted by several LGBTQ+ and trans organisations in my constituency of Monmouthshire that are really concerned and frightened about the implications of this judgment. Will the Minister commit to meeting trans people from my constituency, such as those from Queerspace, Abergavenny Pride and Monmouth Pride, to hear their concerns about the impact of this ruling?

I note my hon. Friend’s concern, and I can assure her that I will continue to meet a range of stakeholders in this important area, because I agree with her that no one should face prejudice or discrimination because of who they are. That is why we are working with the Home Office to deliver our commitment to equalising all existing strands of hate crimes and making them aggravated offences. We will work right across this House to ensure that, while we maintain single-sex spaces for biological women, trans people have the support and respect they deserve, including in access to healthcare services.

Will the Secretary of State take action to ensure that policies and lessons in schools are not led by external organisations that have been captured by contested gender ideology?

As I set out in my response to the Leader of the Opposition, we will publish revised guidance for RSHE. It is an important principle that parents should understand what is being taught to their children at school, and we will ensure that that is maintained.

Over the last few days, the number of calls to Switchboard, the national LGBT+ helpline in my constituency, has skyrocketed. The callers are in fear of what this ruling means for them. Trans people who are frightened to use public loos today know that the overwhelming threat to women and to all the trans community is the violence that we suffer from cis men. Does the Minister agree that we should all be clear about that?

I agree that male violence remains a very serious challenge that we face as a country, and it is a challenge this Labour Government are determined to confront. The ruling of the Supreme Court was clear about the importance of biological sex, but I would not want any trans person in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, or anywhere across the country, to be fearful. I believe that everyone has the right to be treated with dignity and respect, and should not face discrimination or harassment. That is why we will back the police in ensuring that action is taken against anyone who behaves in that way.

I would be grateful if the Minister focused on her Government and the future implications of this judgment. In her statement, she said that “NHS England will soon publish guidance on how trans patients should be accommodated in clinical settings.” I will read to her what the Worcestershire acute hospitals NHS trust has in its guidance: “Patients should always be treated as the gender they identify as, regardless of what their transition looks like or how long they have shared their gender identity with others… Patients should always be in an environment that aligns with their gender identity.” Would she say to this trust that it needs to act very quickly to change that guidance?

My colleagues and officials in the Department of Health and Social Care are in contact with NHS England to ensure that guidance is set out rapidly to provide the clarity required after the Supreme Court judgment. If the hon. Lady shares with me the detail of what she has just read out, I will happily make sure that that is investigated further.

I welcome the ruling from the Supreme Court and the Minister’s statement. The Supreme Court has been clear that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex. The question now turns to how we make sure that the Equality Act is properly understood and implemented. How will the Minister ensure that public bodies, third-sector organisations, sports bodies, regulated sectors and so on comply with the Act, so that women’s safety, privacy and dignity are protected?

As I said, we will work with the EHRC to provide further guidance to service providers, including through the update to the statutory code of practice. We expect the EHRC to do that as rapidly as possible, recognising that this is a thorough and detailed piece of work. But it is important that service providers, arising from this Supreme Court ruling, now have the clarity and confidence that was always there in the Equality Act 2010.

The Supreme Court’s ruling goes a long way to guarantee the rights and safety of women and girls. Does the Minister agree that the judgment highlights why it is now right for the SNP Government finally to ditch the divisive gender self-ID agenda once and for all, and proves it was totally wrong for Scottish Labour to back the SNP Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill?

My understanding is that the Scottish Government do not intend to progress their gender recognition reforms. My officials will work with the EHRC, which in turn will work with the Scottish Government. I believe that Scottish Ministers have indicated that they wish to engage with the EHRC on the guidance, which is an important and welcome development.

I am proud to represent a constituency that shows tolerance to people from all backgrounds, unlike the political hot potato the issue has become in this place and in political dialogue. I have a constituent who transitioned in the 1970s. She has used female toilets for more of her life than any other toilets. Are we saying that her dignity and the respect the Minister talked about will be in any way improved if there is a ban on her using the toilets she has been using for so many years?

The Supreme Court ruling made it clear that the provision of single-sex spaces is on the basis of biological sex, but what I would say to my hon. Friend and her constituent is that the development of the code of practice, which the EHRC will set out, will make sure that businesses and others will ensure dignity and respect for all, and that there is appropriate provision, including the use of toilet facilities, so that no one, including trans people, must feel unsafe when they use public toilets.

Everyone must be able to access services with their dignity upheld and privacy respected, including women and trans people, but following the Supreme Court ruling many people are feeling confused and concerned. We must not allow it to lead to further heated arguments and toxicity. What steps is the Minister taking to develop the critical guidance needed to give businesses and public bodies clarity on how the ruling should be implemented, so that everyone is treated with the dignity they deserve?

We will work with the EHRC on that guidance. It will present a revised code of practice, which I will review and present in due course. It is important that it does that as quickly as possible but, as I have said, this is a complex area and it must be undertaken thoroughly, with engagement with a range of stakeholders, including businesses, for the reasons the hon. Lady identifies.

Far from clarity, the verdict raises as many questions as it answers. Indeed, it has been referred to by the civil servant Melanie Field, who oversaw the Equality Act’s drafting and passage, as having significantly reinterpreted Parliament’s intentions. These questions are primarily about the purpose now of the gender recognition certificate and whether exclusion from single-sex spaces is merely lawful or required. But in protecting women’s spaces such as toilets from predatory men pretending to be trans women, what exactly stops those same men from now accessing them by pretending to be trans men?

I understand the concern my hon. Friend expresses and why she raises those questions, but I have to say to her that the position of the Government is that the Supreme Court has provided clarity and confidence in this area, particularly where it comes to single-sex spaces being on the basis of biological sex. The basis for that was the Equality Act, introduced by the previous Labour Government.

I am pleased to get the clarity from the Supreme Court judgment. Those of us on the Conservative Benches have always known what a woman is. The right hon. Lady says the Government will ensure that public services are fully compliant with the legislation, which is good. She talked about NHS single-sex wards and the provision for biological females and biological males. Can she confirm whether that means trans women will be cared for on male wards?

The basis for NHS provision, and the basis for single-sex services of all kinds, will be on the basis of biological sex.

May I first welcome and thank the Minister for the measured way she delivered the statement, but also for her robust work on this issue? Last week’s landmark Supreme Court judgment provided not only clarity, but some long-overdue common sense. For too long, the issue has at times been toxic and has caused a great deal of harm to both women and trans people. Will she confirm that her Department is liaising with the EHRC to seek assurances that it will not only work at pace, but set some clear timelines on updating the statutory guidance? Will she also ensure that any guidance that is now unlawful is withdrawn?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will work as quickly as possible with the EHRC in this important area. I also think she is right to highlight the importance of good temper when it comes to different views on this topic, recognising that people have had strongly held views over a number of years and respecting one another, and, where we disagree, we do not descend into hate-filled rhetoric or involve ourselves in unfortunate and deeply regrettable protests, some of which have involved the defacement of statues. Now is the opportunity, arising from the Supreme Court judgment, to draw a line under this and ensure that the right guidance is in place and that there is clarity for all.

I appreciate the Minister’s words about reducing the temperature. An awful lot of people are hurting a huge amount this week as a result of the announcement. I appreciate the commitment to reduce the temperature and hope that everybody will sign up to that. The SNP welcomes the clarity offered on the definition in the Equality Act, notes the judgment’s points of interaction between the 2010 Act and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and notes the commitment of the Minister and the EHRC to deliver as quickly as possible the guidance on the new code of practice. I would like to ask her if and when she will be replying to the letter, sent by the Scottish Government, seeking an early meeting with the UK Government. I urge her to undertake that meeting as soon as possible, please.

I would of course be happy to engage with colleagues from the Scottish Government. I will respond to that letter as quickly as I can.

I am very conscious that I represent many trans, intersex and non-binary constituents, and that the representations made to me in my office over the past few days have had a very clear message that they are feeling particularly victimised and quite scared for their own safety. Some are trans women and some are trans men, who seem to be very much lost from this debate. The one thing that really unites them is that they are worried about their day-to-day safety, so can I ask the Minister to provide some assurance to trans people right across the country that the Equality Act is still there and can protect them from discrimination and harassment?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They retain protection from discrimination and harassment. I can say very clearly to this House that trans people should not be victims of discrimination or harassment. They deserve dignity and respect. That is why it is important that we also ensure that trans people have access to high-quality healthcare services and that we clamp down on hate crimes, including those targeted at LGBT people.

I welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling and congratulate For Women Scotland and others who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue despite the abuse, threats and attempts to silence them. Will the Minister please confirm what discussions the Prime Minister or anyone on the Labour Front Bench at the time had with Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, when he whipped his MSPs to vote in favour of the SNP’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill? Do those on the Labour Front Bench now regret some of their previous decisions, when they sided against women across the country who were voicing their very real concerns?

Where I can agree with the hon. Lady is that no one should face threats, intimidation or harassment for expressing their views—that is an important principle of freedom of speech in our country, but it should not cross a line. On the approach we take in Scotland, the leader of the Scottish Labour party has indicated that he welcomes and supports the Supreme Court judgment.

I do not know whether anyone else in the House has butch lesbian friends and has been with them when they have been told to get out of women’s toilets, but I have—it is not pleasant; it is not nice. The people who are using this as a political football again should be ashamed of themselves. People do not understand: they are saying that trans women have to use men’s toilets and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) said, trans men then have to use women’s toilets, but how will they stop them? Will they ask to see their genitalia? It makes no sense. Is my right hon. Friend aware that service providers for refuges, which provide a vital service for women in desperate need and often use their discretion, are now fearful that they will no longer be able to use their discretion when providing those services?

The Supreme Court judgment set out that single-sex spaces are provided on the basis of biological sex. I do recognise the concern that my hon. Friend raises—lesbians should not be treated in a discriminatory way, and we must ensure that there are toilets and facilities available for everyone in our country. Additional clarity on the areas she has identified will be provided through the guidance the EHRC will set out.

In some ways, the biggest question today is why it took a Supreme Court decision to confirm this position in the Equality Act. I have heard from so many women who are considering standing as candidates but are reluctant to do so because of the toxicity in public life, and I think this debate is probably one of the most toxic in terms of misogyny. I am lucky: I am a man, and I have not experienced it to the same extent—nowhere near what women have experienced. Will the Minister take this moment to stand up for all women who have campaigned on this issue, reject the abuse and hostility that has been put towards them, restate the importance of their dignity and of respect, and thank For Women Scotland for the work it has done in taking this forward?

I do recognise the hon. Gentleman’s good intentions in asking that question, but I would say to him that, like many women in this House, I have experienced that too. We know what it is like as women to face that kind of abuse. We must recognise that there can be no place for such abuse in public life and that we have a responsibility to change that culture and climate and to encourage women to come forward and stand for elected office.

Since I have been in this House, I have felt the force of the lobby that has made people and MPs across this House stand there and say that trans women are women. Last week the Supreme Court said that sex in the Equality Act is actually biological sex, and I welcome that. What is the Minister going to do to deal with the type of damage that Mermaids and Stonewall caused to a generation, during 14 years of a Tory Government? What steps will she take to rectify the damage that they have done to a generation of trans and gender-questioning children?

I recognise my hon. Friend’s long-standing interest and campaigning in this area. She is right that the Supreme Court judgment provides clarity on biological sex. When it comes to support for gender-questioning children, when we are talking about children and young people, this has to be about their wellbeing. We are often talking about young people who are very vulnerable and experiencing real difficulties in their lives. The Hilary Cass review made it clear that young people in that situation need support and protection. That is why we will also publish revised gender-questioning guidance for our schools this year to provide that necessary further clarity.

First, I would like to ask the Minister how we are all going to be asked to prove our birth sex. As the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) said, this is not just about people who are transgender, non-binary and intersex; it is also about people who do not conform to gender stereotypes. One of my constituents has told me: “It seems I am to be ghettoised into trans spaces”, while another said that “this ruling sends a message that trans people do not belong…however much we contribute”. What does the Minister suggest I say to those constituents, and will she join me and the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) in meeting Dorset’s Space Youth Project for LGBT young people when it visits Parliament next week?

I would say to the hon. Lady’s constituents and to trans people across the country that the ruling was clear that while single-sex spaces are on the basis of biological sex, trans people retain protection from discrimination and harassment in law, and that the Government will always ensure that trans people have the dignity and respect they deserve.

Research shows that half of trans people already fear using public toilets, so I am deeply concerned about the impact of comments by the Minister and the Prime Minister’s spokesperson that trans people should use a toilet that many of them would not feel comfortable or safe in. Can I ask: how would trans people’s exclusion from the toilets they have long used be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, as the Supreme Court judgment and Equality Act dictate? Would the Minister like to clarify that there is, in fact, nothing in law that requires trans women to use men’s toilets, trans men to use women’s toilets, or non-binary people to use a toilet corresponding with the sex they were assigned at birth?

The Supreme Court’s judgment was clear on biological sex, but I do understand and recognise the need to ensure that there is provision in place for everyone in our society, including toilet facilities. That is why many businesses and service providers provide unisex facilities, while many service providers will also put in place enclosed bathrooms that do not require people to make that decision to ensure that their dignity and privacy are respected. That is important for all people in our country.

I have a practical question: does the ruling apply retrospectively? If, for example, someone was to have lost their job for their views or won a title in sport, would it apply retrospectively—yes or no?

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to employment law cases, on which I would have to defer to legal colleagues. The judgment set out that the Equality Act 2010 is the basis for single-sex spaces being determined on the basis of biology. The Court determined that that was always the case and had always been the case since 2010—it was his party that failed to provide that clarity over 14 years.

The unanimous Supreme Court judgment has provided clarity over the application of the Equality Act 2010. It is incredibly important that hard-earned women’s rights and single-sex spaces are protected, while also protecting our trans community, who continue to face considerable discrimination; there needs to be a solution whereby they, too, are treated with dignity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this entire issue needs to be handled with a great deal of sensitivity and sensibility, rather than being treated as a political football or a culture war issue?

I agree that the Supreme Court judgment provides much-needed clarity and certainty, including for service providers. I also agree that we need to ensure that this matter is handled with sensitivity; in particular, we have had a number of exchanges in this House where we have talked about children who might be gender-questioning and might be experiencing significant issues affecting their wellbeing. I want to make sure that right across society, women have the access to single-sex spaces that they need and deserve and, as my hon. Friend has said, they have long campaigned for. I also want to ensure that trans people receive the appropriate support, including healthcare, and do not face discrimination or harassment on the basis of who they are.

While the Supreme Court ruling brings clarity to some, it brings undeniable fear and uncertainty to others. The Minister’s statement today still leaves vulnerable trans people lost in a maze of complex equalities law. She talks about dignity and respect. Let us look at our prison system, which is just one setting for which her Government are responsible. It is dangerously dysfunctional. What safeguards will now be strengthened so that no trans person is placed in greater danger as a direct result of this ruling?

I am afraid that I disagree with the right hon. Lady that the ruling was complex. It was straightforward and very clear, and has provided clarity that has been sadly lacking for many years. Of course it is important that vulnerable prisoners receive the support they need, but single-sex spaces are determined, as the Supreme Court has ruled, on the basis of biological sex. Where there are vulnerable prisoners, different situations may need to be put in place, separate from that arrangement.

I am quite frankly astounded that the Leader of the Opposition seeks to portray herself as a champion of women’s rights when she has refused to recognise the reality of discrimination and harassment of women, and has stripped the funding from so many of the services that protect women. I pay tribute to the many Members of this Chamber who have worked publicly and privately to protect single-sex spaces and the rights and dignity of trans people. The judgment clarifies that single-sex spaces do not have to offer services to trans women, but can my right hon. Friend the Minister say whether they are obliged to refuse services to them?

Spaces that operate on a single-sex basis must do so on the basis of biological sex, but of course providers can offer inclusive services, should they choose to do so, so long as they are clear about who they are offering their services to. I agree with my hon. Friend that the last Government had a shameful record on the prosecution of rape and of domestic violence; at that time in this country, rape was all but decriminalised.

I am sure the Minister will recognise that there are many women, including former supporters of her own party, who voted for candidates like me entirely because of our record of supporting biological women. However, in the meantime, given that a number of trade unions claim that they will ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court, and in some cases even campaign against it, what plans do the Government have to ensure that all trade unions are made to recognise that the Supreme Court ruling applies to them too?

I do not know where the hon. Lady has been since July, but her party suffered a devastating general election defeat. That is why she is sat over there on the Opposition Benches rather than here on the Government Benches.

Many of my trans, intersex and non-binary residents in Exeter and their relatives have been in touch with me to express their concern and fear after the decision last week. I know that my right hon. Friend mentioned this in her opening statement, but will she recommit to our ambitious agenda to advance the dignity and respect of trans people over the course of this Parliament?

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. What I would say to his constituents and to trans people across our country is that we are working with the Home Office to deliver our commitment to equalise all existing strands of hate crime to make them aggravated offences. We will also bring forward a draft conversion practices Bill, in line with the King’s Speech and our manifesto, that will be trans-inclusive. We are clear that that ban must not cover legitimate psychological support, treatment or non-directive counselling, but we are clear that conversion practices are abuse and we will legislate to stop them.

Many people are feeling deeply worried about the Supreme Court judgment and what it means for their ability to live their lives in dignity and in privacy. Will the Minister make a commitment to uphold trans people’s fundamental rights, including the right to privacy, given that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was created in part to do that? The Supreme Court ruling risks dismantling that by forcing trans people to out themselves multiple times a day whenever they visit the toilet, including in their workplace, in public buildings, or, indeed, in hospital.

I am sorry, but I disagree with the questions that the hon. Lady poses. The ruling from the Supreme Court was clear, setting out that while single-sex spaces are to be delivered on the basis of biological sex, trans people must be free to live their lives free of discrimination and harassment and must retain clear protections within law.

The Minister will know that there is considerable concern and fear among transgender, intersex and non-binary people across the UK, including in my constituency. Will she outline what urgent steps the Government are taking to reassure my trans and non-binary constituents that it is their right to remain protected under UK law? What is she doing to ensure that the ruling is not misinterpreted or misused to undermine those constituents’ dignity, safety and access to services, and that it does not lead to discrimination on a wide scale, including through wrongly challenging people who are trying to go about their lives in our communities?

The rights of trans people are respected and retained following the Supreme Court judgment. The ruling was very clear about that, and it is important that we emphasise that point here today. Alongside that, we will ensure that hate crime is properly recorded and punished, because trans people and all people in our country deserve to live their lives free from discrimination, harassment and hate.

Patients deserve to be treated not only in single-sex wards, but —especially when they are having intimate examinations —by clinicians of the gender and sex that they wish. Is the Minister as concerned as I am about the General Medical Council carrying on with its policy to remove and hide biological sex from the medical register? What discussions is she having with the GMC and the other medical regulators about this issue?

I agree that it is important that patients have the right to single-sex provision, including around clinical treatment, but the hon. Gentleman might want to have a word with the Leader of the Opposition about the massive increase in the use of mixed-sex wards under his party in government.

In Britain today, trans women are denied safe housing, refused essential healthcare and left waiting years for gender-affirming treatment. This is not accidental; it is the result of a climate of hostility against a marginalised community, fuelled by people in positions of power, including in this very Chamber. Let me be clear: trans people are not a debate, a culture war or an ideology; they are human beings, and trans rights are human rights. Will this Government ensure that they do not pander to hate? Will they reverse their damaging roll- back of LGBT+ rights, including the ban on puberty blockers, and unequivocally defend the Equality Act and the protections that it provides for trans people across the UK?

The hon. Lady asked a number of questions. What I can say to her is that trans people, of course, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and they retain rights to live their lives free of discrimination and harassment, as set out in the Supreme Court judgment. She asked about puberty blockers. I am afraid that there will be no change to Government policy in that important area.

Now that we have confirmation from the Supreme Court of what the definition of a woman is, can the Minister confirm that all public sector and private sector bodies will apply that definition with immediate effect?

The Equality and Human Rights Commission will set out a statutory code of practice that will provide further clarity. But I would just say to the hon. Gentleman that I will take no lectures from his party about the importance of defending women’s rights, given that one of his own number who sits on those Benches was convicted of and went to prison for assaulting his former partner.

There are some days when I am really proud to be an MP and to witness the level of debate in this Chamber, and there are some days like today—when, quite frankly, the Leader of the Opposition was absolutely appalling. She continues to talk over people, to not listen and to laugh at people while they are talking about an issue that is very, very serious. People out there are scared as a result of this judgment. [Interruption.] Could you maybe let me speak? I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker: will the Leader of the Opposition afford me the politeness of not speaking over me? My question, and I will ask a question—[Interruption.]

Order. I do appreciate that feelings are running high in this statement, but I say to the hon. Lady: please do ask your question and put it on the record.

The debate we have in this Chamber is listened to by people who are scared. The behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition has been to talk over people and laugh at people, and when cis-men violence was mentioned, there was laughter on the Opposition Benches. That does not reassure women or trans women in this country. Does the Minister agree?

I agree that these matters are sensitive, and when we discuss them it generates strong feelings. It is, of course, right that we in this House are able to engage in robust discussion, including on issues that may at times be difficult. I accept my hon. Friend’s point: we do need to treat one another with respect and understand the need—

Follow your own advice then.

So much for dignity and respect, eh?

I welcome the clear ruling from the Supreme Court, and I thank the Minister for her statement, but I am really disappointed that there was no mention of schools at all in the statement. Many schools are teaching gender ideology as if it is fact and are not providing single-sex facilities or single-sex sports teams. How will she ensure that schools now comply with the ruling and the law as it has always been?

I suggest to the hon. Lady that she review Hansard after this statement.

Following the welcome clarity from the Supreme Court that Labour’s Equality Act has always contained the right to single-sex spaces for women as well as protections for trans people, does the Minister agree that the SNP Scottish Health Secretary must urgently get a grip and ensure that the NHS is upholding the law, especially in my area of Fife where it appears that a nurse, Sandie Peggie, was disciplined by NHS managers for trying to exercise her right to use a single-sex changing room?

My hon. Friend will understand that I am not in a position to comment on ongoing cases, but I can say to her that I agree that the Supreme Court ruling demonstrated that the Equality Act introduced by the last Labour Government is the basis on which single-sex provision based on biological sex should be delivered.

The Minister says that the ruling provides clarity, but for the trans constituents I met and corresponded with over the weekend it provides anxiety and fear. Last week, a local media outlet, The Stray Ferret, published an article documenting a 60% increase in trans hate crime in the last decade in North Yorkshire alone. I and many others worry that the rhetoric and language around this issue will only fuel that. Can the Minister confirm how the Government will ensure that trans people, who are already disproportionately targeted, are not marginalised further and that the upcoming EHRC guidance addresses safety and inclusion as seriously as it does this legal clarity?

The Supreme Court ruling was clear, but the hon. Member is right that there can be no place for hate or for people to be targeted on that basis. It is important that action is taken against those who perpetrate hate crime.

Like many of my colleagues today, I am truly exhausted by the cynicism of the culture wars around this topic. I hope we can focus on how we make any changes work practically. Does the Minister agree that all of us in this House should be mindful that human beings are affected by every comment we make on this matter, and that how we behave here will inform how the wider public behave, which I hope would be with kindness and compassion?

I agree that everyone in our society should be treated with dignity, compassion and respect. The Supreme Court ruling, while setting out its position on biological sex, was also clear that trans people retain important protections in law, including where it applies to discrimination and harassment. I do believe it is important that all of us share that message as we understand the ruling and make sure that it is well understood across our country. The last thing that any of us would want is for trans people to be fearful.

I want everyone treated with dignity and respect, as the Supreme Court made clear should be the case. But should women have to rely on a court ruling, followed by guidance at some point from the EHRC, rather than the clear view of this House? What would be the Government’s view of having primary legislation in this area rather than relying on a court ruling?

The Supreme Court’s ruling was that the Equality Act, which was passed by this House, is the basis for the protections that exist in law on the basis of biological sex.

I have had very constructive discussions with constituents on both sides of this debate. Does the Minister agree that those who seek to promote trans rights with sexually aggressive placards or through aggressively threatening women who disagree with them in the most disgusting ways, as we have all seen, do tremendous harm to the trans cause and should realise how counterproductive their slogans are to the cause they are attempting to promote?

No one should be targeted through vile placards containing abuse or hate. I agree with my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right that not only is it wrong, but it is completely counterproductive and does nothing to advance the discussion that those presenting the placards would wish to be advanced. While I understand that people have strong opinions in this area, it is important that any discussion or debate does not take us to hate-filled rhetoric, threats or threats of violence or intimidation.

The Minister says that her position on these issues is very clear and has not changed at all over the years. She is promising to work at pace now, yet nine months into her time as Education Secretary the guidance on gender-questioning children that was consulted on over a year ago has still not been published. Will she help schools by answering this question: can it ever be right for a school to socially transition a child without talking to the parents first?

We will set out guidance this year for gender-questioning children. It is important, because—[Interruption.] I will answer the question. I will answer it directly if the Opposition Front Bench would just allow me a moment. We will publish the guidance later this year. I recognise the importance of providing clarity to school leaders. We inherited a draft version, and it was important that we looked at it and engaged with stakeholders following the final Cass review. But yes, I do agree that it is important that parents are involved in important decisions about their children’s lives. Alongside that, potential safeguarding considerations will always need to be taken into account. That is why we are looking at these areas very carefully to make sure that we get it right and we provide the clarity that schools leaders are quite rightly asking for.

The Minister is absolutely right that we need to conduct this debate with respect and compassion, because ultimately this is about people’s lives and their rights. That is why there is such concern in the trans community at the moment, including in my Brighton Kemptown constituency, which has the largest trans community in the country. Can she confirm two things for me? First, how will she ensure that trans people have faith that their existing legal protections will be upheld and not rowed back on? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that trans voices are heard as public bodies roll out their response to the ruling?

On the two areas that my hon. Friend asks about, trans people absolutely retain important protections in law, and the ruling of the Supreme Court puts that beyond doubt. To the question about ensuring that trans voices are heard, it will be important that the EHRC engages with a range of voices as part of its consultation in developing the code of practice that will be required to provide further clarity. I am confident that that will happen.

Given that article 2 of the Windsor framework ridiculously requires Northern Ireland to be in dynamic alignment with EU equality directives, which include embracing self-identification, what steps will the Government take to ensure that this common-sense ruling of the Supreme Court is applied consistently and without adulteration across the whole United Kingdom now and always?

I will review the hon. and learned Gentleman’s question and write to him with a full response.

The Supreme Court asked that politicians not weaponise their interpretation of law set down by Parliament—it is almost like it had anticipated the Leader of the Opposition. The public are watching, and wherever they stand on this debate, they are not seeing a potential Prime Minister in the Leader of the Opposition. Because trans people are worried and scared, it is important to give reassurance. The Supreme Court clearly said that trans people remain protected under the Equality Act, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate. The Supreme Court said that it could not rule on the definition of a woman beyond its use in the Equality Act. My constituents who are trans and their allies are deeply scared. Will the Minister stand at the Dispatch Box and repeat her support for trans people in my constituency and around our country? I repeat the invitation mentioned by my friend the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). At my invitation, young trans people from Bournemouth and Dorset are coming to this place to know that this is their Parliament, that they have a place here, and that they will be listened to, respected and have dignity. Will my right hon. Friend or another Minister come and meet them?

If my hon. Friend can provide me with additional details about his request, I will review that. I agree with him about the importance of reassurance that trans people should be free to live their lives with compassion, dignity and respect. The ruling of the Supreme Court made it clear that they retain legal protections; it is important that we all convey that.

I thank the Minister for her statement and her emphasis on the need for sensitivity and indeed good temper in dealing with this topic. In that spirit, may I ask her to salute the courage of J. K. Rowling, Sharron Davies and indeed the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield)?

Over many decades, fantastic women have campaigned for the protection and creation of single-sex spaces, have fought against violence against women and girls, and have led some brilliant campaigns. I pay tribute to all those women—many of them are unsung heroes whose names we will never hear anywhere and will never be mentioned in the Chamber—for their fantastic campaigning efforts. It is only because of the amazing work of feminists from the 1970s onwards that we have rape crisis centres and women’s refuges.

I welcome the Minister’s statement and put on record my thanks to For Women Scotland for its tireless work over a number of years. It was the public face of many women who have experienced discrimination, abuse and personal loss for making the argument that the Supreme Court made last Wednesday. The Supreme Court held up the rights of lesbians to be able to associate with same-sex attracted women. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that lesbians and gay men can associate without facing challenge?

The Supreme Court ruling makes that clear and provides the clarity that many, including lesbians and gay men, have been asking for. The EHRC statutory code of practice will provide further clarity. But I agree with my hon. Friend that no one should have faced abuse, intimidation or harassment for expressing their legitimately held opinions.

While the Scottish National party may see this as a judgment made by judicial bigots, most people will see it as a decision of common sense and will wonder why the courts had to decide what was a man and what was a woman. But given the intolerant, threatening and violent response from the trans lobby, will the Minister assure us that the judgment will not be undermined by the guidance she issues to the House and that vulnerable people, sports teams, hospital patients, teachers and children will be protected and not adversely affected as they have been in the past? Will she also assure us that it will be raised at the highest level of Government that Northern Ireland must be included in these protections?

The Supreme Court judgment was clear, and it is welcome and necessary, but it also set out that the basis for protection for single-sex spaces is rooted in the Equality Act. Those provisions were always there, but now we have the clarity that many have been calling for. While I note the right hon. Member’s understandable concern about the behaviour of a minority that crosses a line into conduct that is potentially criminal and certainly unacceptable, we do need to tread with just a bit of care not to lump everyone into that category; I am sure that was not his intention. While there can be no place for intimidation or threats, or threats of violence, people do have the right to express their opinions in line with our long-standing right to freedom of speech.

The Equality Act is a vital piece of legislation that is there to protect the essential rights of oppressed groups, including women and trans people, in a world that is still far too dominated by sexism and bigotry, including transphobia. I used the Equality Act plenty of times to represent people as a lawyer before I came to this place. The House will no doubt discuss the impact of the recent Court judgment again, but as we look online and at some of the media, can we try to ensure that the debate respects all groups, including trans people? Some of the stuff spilling out of the right-wing press and online in recent days has been truly awful. That has been raised with me by trans constituents who are just trying to get on with their lives.

The Equality Act was one of the last Labour Government’s proudest achievements in ensuring that people are able to live their life free from discrimination, prejudice and harassment. I agree with my hon. Friend on recognising that important landmark piece of legislation. When we discuss what can be difficult and sensitive issues for some, we should understand that, as he said, people simply want to get on and live their life free from discrimination, harassment and abuse.

In 2022, as I was sitting at Wormley community centre telling for the local elections, a woman said to me, “I’ve just voted Conservative because you are the only party that knows what a woman is,” so the British people really do care about this. Will the Minister be more specific on when she will issue guidance to schools about gender-questioning children?

As I have said on a number of occasions in the House, we will issue that guidance this year.

I welcome the clarification and statement from my right hon. Friend. The way in which she has dealt reasonably with questions in the House is testament to her fortitude and ability. A number of groups in my constituency have made representations, including Hilary Cooke from Medway Pride and women’s advocacy groups. There is a worry around some of the elements to do with harassment and discrimination—a concern that some might take an opportunity to target the trans community. Will she guarantee that Labour’s Equality Act will stand, and will prevent abuse, harassment and discrimination?

The Equality Act does stand, and it provides clear protections in law for women and trans people. It is important that women have access to single-sex spaces such as women’s refuges and rape crisis centres, but it is also important, of course, that trans people have access to high-quality healthcare and appropriate support services—and, in addition, can see the police taking action against hate crime.

A man is a man and a woman is a woman. Anybody watching this at home will think that the lunatics have taken over the asylum, which they quite clearly have. I do not need a Supreme Court judgment or ruling to tell me that a bloke should not be in a women’s changing room. I want to ask the Minister a simple question for more clarity: can a woman have a penis?

I tell you what: blokes should not beat up women. Maybe the hon. Member should have a word with his colleague.

The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I have had a lot of correspondence on this ruling, and there is great concern among the trans community about what the impact will be. There is also concern among the wider LGBT community that, in this populist age, the ruling may signal a move away from progress on LGBT rights. I therefore welcome her statement that there will be guidance. Will she ensure that that guidance is widely distributed, and is clear, so that it is understood? Will she also assure the LGBT community and the House that the Government and the Labour party stand four-square behind the advancement of LGBT rights, as they have long done, and that we will fight any attempt to row back on the progress of the last 30 years or the gains of the last Labour Government?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the advances made over many decades in ensuring that LGBT people are treated with dignity and have the support and ability to participate in public life; frankly, many years ago, for many people, that was simply not the case. We have made enormous progress in tackling prejudice and discrimination, and this Labour Government will always ensure that whatever someone’s background, they will have every opportunity to take part in public life and achieve all that they are capable of. The Equality Act, which is one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government, enshrines in law the right to freedom from discrimination and harassment for women—and, yes, for trans people, too.

May I thank the Minister for her answers and her statement? This ends years of confusion around sex-based protections. Being a woman is a matter of biology, not identity, and certainly not paperwork. The judgment is welcomed by women, children and, I believe, many others. Does the Minister agree that it is not an eradication of rights for any person in this United Kingdom, but an underlining of protection? What discussions will take place with Cabinet colleagues to bring about an end to, for example, posters that use the terminology “birthing people”, and to other such phrases being used in the NHS, and to instead ensure a return throughout UK health trusts to the court-declared definition of a woman? Today is a good day for women, a great day for the law, and a wonderful day for people, and for truth.

I agree that the ruling of the Supreme Court was clear. That is important. It provides welcome clarity in a range of areas. On the issues that the hon. Gentleman identifies, such as access to healthcare treatment, it is for good reason that we make sure that there are sex-based services available for women, such as those who are breastfeeding, going through pregnancy and much more besides. Alongside that, we also need to make sure that healthcare is available and accessible to all.

We have made so much progress as a society in breaking down sexist stereotyping. The stereotypes that said women had set roles and should look and act in a certain way were being broken down, exposed as the fake construct they really are. Sex is the only factor that distinguishes men from women. Beyond that, we should be able to live without conforming to those stereotypes. Then a movement came along that argued that all those feminine, girly things and those sexist stereotypes we had been fighting to break down were, in fact, the things that make a woman, and not sex. That is regressive, backward and nonsensical. Will the Minister join me in saluting those courageous women who stood up and pointed out the absurdity of that argument, and commit to rooting out that ideology from our public institutions?

Over many decades, feminist campaigners, from the ’70s onwards, worked incredibly hard to ensure that women were able to divorce, that when that happened they were able to see their children, that they got protection at work, that they did not face discrimination, that they could access women’s refuges and rape crisis centres, and that rape was finally, back in the early ’90s, banned in marriage. I pay tribute to the amazing feminist campaigners and women over many decades who have brought us to a much stronger position, and to the brilliant trailblazers from across political parties who have ensured that we have far more women represented in this place than ever before.

I want to thank the Minister for these remarks in her statement: “Dignity and respect for all—those are the values that lift us up and set us free. Those are the values that define and distinguish any modern and compassionate society.” Will she just reiterate one more time that when this Government talk about increasing the support for equality for all, that really does mean all?

My hon. Friend is right. This is about dignity and compassion for all, and that is an important message that I think we should all take out from this House.

For the final question, I call David Smith.

I thank the Minister for her clear and positive response to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Like her, before I was elected to this place, I ran a north-east-based homelessness charity for eight years. I have to say, contrary to what we have heard in some of the debate in the last few days and even in this place today, it is almost always possible to find a solution that allows us to support people on a single-sex basis and those who identify as transgender. In the last eight years of running that charity, I was not helped by the total lack of clarity from the Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that it is important to reaffirm that in the Equality Act, trans people remain protected from discrimination under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, and that the Supreme Court ruling is focused on clarifying protections, based on the protected characteristic of sex, that have always existed in the Equality Act?

My hon. Friend is right in his assessment, and I pay tribute to him for his work over many years to support homeless people, including young people, across the north-east. I agree that it has always been possible to ensure that single-sex spaces were delivered on the basis of biological sex under the Equality Act, but I am glad that providers can now be absolutely confident and crystal clear about that. One additional observation is that the rights we are talking about were hard fought and hard won, and there was significant push-back over many periods. My hon. Friend will doubtless have had the same experience as I did: commissioners suggested that mixed-sex accommodation was appropriate when, in many cases, we were talking about vulnerable young women who had been exposed to sexual violence, including sexual abuse in the home, and what they wanted and needed was single-sex accommodation. It is important that we ensure that appropriate services are available for anyone who needs them. That means that, on occasion, trans people will also require separate provision, so that their needs—their healthcare needs, their support needs, and their needs in cases where they may face abuse and intimidation—can be properly met.