The PCS Proud National Committee is appalled to find that 25 motions at ADC 2025 have been marked out of order – an unprecedented number compared to just 3 last year – due to legal concerns. It has not escaped our attention that the majority of these out-of-order motions relate to trans rights.

For example, one emergency motion proposed by three branches was ruled out of order for including the phrase: “Publicly commit to all trans people being able to use the facilities of their choice at all PCS events/buildings, including ensuring that trans women are welcome in all women’s spaces in our union.” The legal consultation received by the Standing Orders Committee advised that this phrase could expose the union to legal risk. It was argued that the statement conflicted with the Equality Act 2010, which permits the separation of sexes in certain contexts. However, this advice ignored a wealth of legislation and case law that recognises trans people in accordance with their gender identity—and that gender identity and phenotypic sex are not the same. Proud’s own emergency motion on the recent Supreme Court ruling was among those dismissed.

The PCS Proud National Committee condemns the National President’s use of legal advice obtained from Thompsons to rule out motions they do not agree with, under the pretext of legal risk. We are deeply concerned about the constitutional implications of this approach, which suggests that Conference is no longer the sovereign body empowered to determine union policy—even where that policy might challenge the current legal framework. The National President’s use of legal mechanisms, alongside his presidential rulings throughout the year to prevent the National Executive Committee (NEC) from taking actions he opposes, is further evidence that our National President, Martin Cavanagh, is intent on ruling by presidential decree.

This deference to a “ruling of the highest court in the land”—a ruling made without any trans voices, yet informed by trans-exclusionary groups like Sex Matters and For Women Scotland, and referencing a non-statutory, arguably unlawful EHRC proposal—is deeply troubling. Despite claims to the contrary, the law itself has not changed. The Civil Service is under instruction not to amend existing guidance until legal advice is obtained on the complex interaction between various pieces of legislation.

However, delegates arriving at Conference received a statement requesting that trans people use either the facilities associated with their birth sex or a ‘third space’. This statement was issued on 17 May—the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, and Transphobia. The Brighton Centre’s own policy had not been updated, and amid the potential outcry, the proposal was quietly dropped. Most group presidents refused to read the bathroom statement when opening their respective conferences.

NEC member and PCS Proud NEC liaison officer Fiona Brittle submitted a motion to condemn and withdraw both the legal advice and the bathroom guidance at the 9.30 p.m. NEC meeting on 18 May. This motion will be published separately. It was shared with the Chair and all NEC members in anticipation that President Martin Cavanagh would rule it out of order and refuse a debate or vote.

Fiona attempted to raise a point of order on the blocked motion, at which point Martin prevented her from speaking and ruled that the motion would not be heard, allowing the statements to stand. She challenged the Chair’s ruling, which was put to a vote. Her challenge passed with a majority of 18–14, but the ruling was upheld, as NEC standing orders require a two-thirds majority to overturn the Chair.

In addition to rejecting 25 emergency motions in support of trans rights, the National Standing Orders Committee (NSOC) also refused to print Motion A57 in the agenda. Motion A57 predates the Supreme Court ruling and had initially been included in the SOC1 paper for debate at ADC. It was printed and ready for debate up until May 20, the day the Annual Delegate Conference began. Legal advice had been provided on the same day, dated May 20 leaving no room to challenge its removal from the agenda. With the removal of A57 from the agenda, only two motions relating to trans rights remained: one on communications and the other on the Sullivan Review.

Both of the remaining motions were written after the Supreme Court ruling. One addressed the publication of the Sullivan Review, while the other concerned the union’s communications on LGBT+ and equalities matters. Both motions were drafted with the assumption that A57 would already appear in the SOC1 motions booklet for debate. Its removal was unthinkable. These two motions, along with Proud’s emergency motion and 24 other emergency motions on the Supreme Court ruling, were intended to complement A57—not replace it. Neither of these motions were intended to serve as the flagship trans rights motion at ADC 2025. Neither motion called for the union to denounce bio-essentialism. Both were narrow in scope, with the Sullivan motion focusing solely on data collection. Without A57 and the emergency motions, there were no strong motions on trans rights for Conference to debate.

Contrary to implications in the legal advice, transphobia is not a “protected philosophical belief” under the law. That suggestion stems from a deliberate misreading of case law. The Equality Act 2010 clearly provides that one protected characteristic cannot be used to justify discrimination against another. For example, a religious belief cannot be used to discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation. The advice from Thompsons reflects a “zero risk” approach—but what trade union activity carries zero risk? Our role as trade unionists is to advocate for our members, and that often means challenging the status quo—especially when the law is wrong.

Unions played a crucial role in overturning Section 28. Until 1991, domestic abuse was not considered a criminal matter if the parties involved were married. We did not accept that then, and we do not accept this now. The rule of law is not infallible—and when it is wrong, it must be resisted by any means necessary.

The Proud National Committee believes Thompsons was approached with the intent of providing legal cover to suppress motions and prevent them from being heard, knowing that these motions would likely pass and become union policy. The Committee will seek access to the original request submitted to Thompsons, as legal questions can be framed to shape the advice received. We do not believe the legal team arrived at this decision independently.

The suggestion that the union cannot affirm that a trans woman is a woman, and a trans man is a man, effectively silences union members. The PCS Proud National Committee also notes that similar events have occurred in Unison, where Thompsons has again been used to provide legal justification for quashing motions supporting trans rights.

In response, trade unionists fighting for trans rights began resisting acceptance of the Conference’s Standing Orders until A57 was reinstated. Multiple attempts were made, and Conference was nearly shut down as a result.

This resistance began when Saorsa Amatheia Tweedale, Chair of the PCS Proud National Committee, attempted to raise a point of order before the Standing Orders were accepted. The National President claimed that Conference had not yet begun, and therefore a point of order could not be raised. Saorsa then attempted to challenge the Chair’s ruling, but this was denied by the National President. The suggestion of course that points of order that the union’s rules are being broken cannot happen is nonsensical.

PCS Proud applauds the efforts of trans activists during the opening of Conference for their calls to reinstate A57 and in defence of principles of union democracy. Conference was nearly brought to a standstill as delegates refused to accept the Standing Orders until A57 was reinstated.

The floor voted multiple times on the issue, culminating in a card vote on whether to accept the Standing Orders:

• 49,016 voted against

• 72,087 voted to accept

• 4,105 abstained

Saorsa again attempted to raise a point of order about the guidance provided to Group Presidents who were instructed to read out a statement about the toilet facilities. Saorsa also highlighted a Facebook post that described the disruption as “men intimidating women”. Martin explicitly stated that he would not take action and did not consider it a transphobic slur. Shortly thereafter, Conference staff cut Saorsa’s microphone in an attempt to silence her.

Drawing attention to a social divide is not the same as creating one. Activists are often viewed as divisive by those who have grown comfortable with the privileges such divides afford them.

PCS Proud will continue to resist any effort to distort, erode, or erase the rights of Trans+, intersex, non-binary, gender non-conforming, and gender diverse people.