Liberal Democrat members have reacted angrily to an unexpected change in rules governing the party’s internal elections to reflect the supreme court’s ruling on biological sex.
The party’s LGBT+ group described the move as “explicitly trans-exclusionary” while Young Liberals said the changes were “unacceptable and untenable”. The official women’s body for the party, Lib Dem Women, have expressed “grave concerns” at both the substance of the announcement and the manner it was communicated. Some Lib Dem MPs are understood to be perplexed at the sudden turnaround.
Voting in elections for posts on internal committees as well as the role of Lib Dem president began on Tuesday. Members were informed on Monday that after legal advice the rules governing quotas in place to ensure fair representation of women on those committees were changing.
A statement on the Lib Dem website said this was necessary “to make them compliant with the Equality Act 2010, in the context of the supreme court judgment”.
The quotas now apply to sex at birth rather than lived gender, meaning women’s quotas now exclude transgender women and men’s quotas exclude transgender men. A party spokesperson said that the changes would include quotas for LGBT+ people including trans people on three larger committees.
The Guardian understands that at least five transgender or non-binary candidates will be directly affected by this decision and that one is seeking legal advice.
In a letter to the Lib Dems’ chief executive, Mike Dixon, the returning officer David Crowther and the party leader, Ed Davey, the LGBT+ group registered their strong objections, stating: “The party has taken a stance here which is explicitly trans-exclusionary. This is a clear contradiction of the views expressed by the party at multiple successive conferences.”
Lib Dem Women have also written to Dixon, reaffirming their commitment to inclusive feminism. Chair Donna Harris wrote: “We stand firmly for the right of all women to participate equally in the party and society.” While acknowledging the legal advice received by the party, Harris added that she believed the response was “disproportionate and unnecessary.”
At September’s Lib Dem conference, delegates voted not to debate a motion from the group Liberal Voice for Women that called for a similar rule change to reflect the supreme court judgment.
A spokesperson for Liberal Voice for Women said: “We are pleased the party has sought legal advice about diversity quotas following the supreme court ruling. Women are routinely under-represented on Lib Dem committees and it is important places expressly reserved for women do not go to male candidates.”
“Whilst we think there are some remaining issues with the quotas, the fact the party has changed these quotas - despite some strong opposition - cements the position that the Lib Dems accept April’s supreme court ruling.”
The chair of LBGT+ Liberal Democrats, Charley Hasted, said they were disappointed that the party had not explored alternative solutions such as suspending the use of quotas until there was legal clarity.
Lucas North, on behalf of Young Liberals, condemned the changes, which they said “were announced on the eve of poll and are in conflict with the clearly expressed wishes and values of Liberal Democrat members”.
The MP group is also understood to have been unhappy at the handling of the decision and perceived lack of consultation with the wider membership.
Writing in Lib Dem Voice, the MP for Eastbourne, Josh Babarinde, said it was “gut-wrenching” to see how the supreme court ruling was reverberating through the party. “We’ve got to do more to support our trans and non-binary candidates and ensure they feel safe and valued making contributions to public life,” he said.
A Liberal Democrat spokesperson said: “Liberal Democrats will continue to champion the rights of trans people and allow them to live their lives free from fear and discrimination. Like all organisations, we’re waiting to see the new guidance from the EHRC. We have urged the government to publish it quickly and provide much needed clarity.”
