Tax and Trust: HMRC, the Wealthy, and the Battle Against Avoidance

976 words, 5 minutes read time.

A new report by the National Audit Office has raised serious questions about how HMRC tackles tax avoidance and non-compliance among the UK’s wealthiest individuals. The findings paint a picture of limited strategy, a lack of transparency, and worrying gaps in skilled enforcement — all at a time when public trust in the fairness of the tax system is under strain.

The NAO’s report makes clear that HMRC knows far more than it tells. Internally, it has identified a much larger sum of tax at risk from offshore non-compliance than it publishes. This hidden figure, linked to the complex tax affairs of wealthy individuals using offshore structures, remains undisclosed to the public — a decision the NAO suggests undermines transparency and weakens public confidence. When ordinary taxpayers see cuts to services while wealthy individuals appear to escape proper scrutiny, the social contract starts to fray.

The wealthy, defined here as individuals with over £10 million in assets or high levels of income, are often in a better position than most to exploit loopholes and complex tax arrangements. Yet, despite this, HMRC has adopted what the NAO calls only a “limited strategy” to address non-compliance in this group. The report warns that this piecemeal approach lacks the overarching vision or coherence needed to systematically close tax gaps and deter wrongdoing.

Adding to the concern is a resourcing issue. In the Autumn Budget, the government announced funding for an extra 5,500 compliance staff over the next five years. While this sounds impressive on paper, the NAO cautions that there’s no clear plan to ensure that these roles are filled with people who have the right expertise to investigate sophisticated financial arrangements. The question isn’t just about numbers — it’s about capability. Tackling high-end avoidance isn’t the same as chasing unpaid PAYE or VAT; it requires specialist knowledge, legal insight, and investigative skill.

The NAO makes several recommendations. Chief among them is the call for HMRC to develop a clear, strategic plan specifically aimed at wealthy non-compliance. It also urges the department to be more open about the scale of the problem — arguing that greater transparency could reassure the public and act as a deterrent to those tempted to push the boundaries.

The report’s message is that fairness matters — and is not just about outcomes, but visibility. When ordinary working people are held to strict compliance and face fines for minor mistakes, the perception that the rich play by a different set of rules corrodes the legitimacy of the entire system.

For those advocating tax justice and a fairer society, the NAO’s findings offer a powerful tool. They expose the need for structural reform in how the tax authorities approach the powerful — and remind us that without scrutiny, fairness is just a slogan. The next step must be political will: not only to fund enforcement, but to demand the transparency and accountability that a healthy democracy requires.

By Maria Camara

Court Says Old Employer Still to Blame for Staff Mistakes Made Before Job Transfer

High Court ruling clarifies what happens under TUPE when employees move jobs but past harm is alleged

407 words, 2 minutes read time.

In the case ABC v Huntercombe (No. 12) Ltd and others, the High Court has ruled that employers cannot pass the blame for their workers’ past mistakes onto a new company just because the staff have been transferred. The decision has important implications for businesses, workers, and anyone affected by workplace negligence.

The Claimant in the case suffered harm while receiving care at a hospital operated by Huntercombe. She claimed that two hospital staff members were responsible. But by the time she took legal action, those two workers had moved to a different company—Active Young People Ltd—through a process known as TUPE.

What is TUPE?

TUPE, short for Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment), is a UK regulation that protects employees when the business or service they work for changes hands. It ensures that workers keep their jobs, pay, and employment terms even when a new employer takes over.

TUPE also means that many of the old employer’s responsibilities—like holiday pay, notice periods, or ongoing grievances—transfer over to the new employer.

But there are limits.

What did the court decide?

The key issue was whether vicarious liability—where an employer is legally responsible for their staff’s actions—also transfers. The Claimant said it should, and argued the new employer should be held responsible for harm caused by staff before the transfer.

The court disagreed. It ruled that TUPE is designed to protect employees, not to make new employers responsible for everything the staff may have done in the past. It said that only legal duties and obligations that exist between the employer and the employee are transferred. Responsibilities for injuries or damage to third parties, like patients or customers, are not.

The court also rejected a previous case, Doane v Wimbledon Football Club, that had suggested the opposite. That earlier case should no longer be followed, it said.

Why it matters

This ruling helps clarify that past liabilities stay with the old employer, even if staff move under TUPE. New employers taking over services or contracts won’t be unexpectedly hit with claims for things that happened before they were in charge.

It also tells Claimants where to aim their legal actions: even if the person responsible has changed employers, the company that employed them at the time of the incident is still the one legally accountable.

By Patrick Harrington

Picture credit: By sjiong – https://www.flickr.com/photos/sjiong/109817932/, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6380215

‘One to Four and Not One More’: The Islington Nursery Workers’ Strike and Why It Still Matters

1,343 words, 7 minutes read time.

In the spring of 1984, more than 150 low-paid nursery workers—nearly all of them women—walked out of their council-run workplaces in Islington and took to the picket lines. Their strike lasted 14 weeks. It was a battle for dignity, for the children in their care, and for the recognition that nursery work is skilled labour, deserving of decent conditions and fair pay.

Their demand was simple, powerful, and memorable: “One to four and not one more.” It was a call for a safe and manageable staff-to-child ratio. This slogan became a rallying cry not only for the strike itself but for a broader recognition of what nursery work entails and why it matters.

Now, over 40 years later, their story is being retold in a powerful new podcast series, Childcare Voices, produced by a team of childcare workers, trade unionists, and parents. The series gives the strikers the chance to tell their story in their own words—of how they organised, what they fought for, and what lessons remain for today’s nursery sector.

This article takes a closer look at the Islington nursery workers’ strike, the conditions that led to it, and why nursery workers—then and now—desperately need the power of collective organisation.

The Road to the Strike

In the early 1980s, Islington Council’s Children’s Day Centres were in crisis. These centres provided vital care for some of the borough’s most vulnerable children, but were chronically underfunded, dangerously understaffed, and neglected by the authorities. Nursery workers were expected to supervise too many children, often in unsafe environments, with inadequate resources and little recognition.

Despite these conditions, or perhaps because of them, nursery staff were deeply committed to their work. They weren’t striking to abandon their responsibilities—they were striking to uphold them.

As early years expert and strike participant Julia Manning-Morton put it, “We were fighting for better conditions for the children in our care as well as for ourselves. That’s just as important today as it was then.”

At the time, Islington Council was led by Margaret Hodge, who had come to power on a progressive platform promising to improve services, including children’s care. But the reality, as the workers soon found, didn’t match the rhetoric.

In response to unfulfilled promises and worsening conditions, the nursery workers—organised through the National Union of Public Employees (NUPE)—took a courageous decision. They walked out.

Fourteen Weeks of Solidarity

The strike quickly became a rallying point for others in the borough. Parents staged their own protests, including an overnight occupation of Islington Town Hall with their children. The Islington Gazette dubbed the action the “Sit In Babes Back Strike.”

The nursery workers also built alliances beyond the borough. Delegations of striking miners and their families visited Islington and stood in solidarity with the nursery workers. Arthur Scargill, then president of the National Union of Mineworkers, shared platforms with nursery workers at rallies.

A delegation of miners’ wives who came to meet the mayor of Islington refused to cross the nursery workers’ picket line. Instead, they had tea with the mayor on the steps of the Town Hall. It was a powerful moment of mutual respect between two groups of workers fighting different, but deeply connected, battles.

Support also spread across the council workforce. Eventually, 400 workers from other departments joined the strike in solidarity.

The nursery workers remained determined throughout. They weren’t just striking for better pay—they were fighting for the basic safety and wellbeing of the children they cared for every day.

The Outcome

After 14 weeks on strike, the workers achieved significant gains. The council agreed to a ratio of one nursery worker to every four and a half children—still short of the “one to four” demand, but a major improvement. Other changes were also secured, including commitments to better working conditions and staffing.

But the struggle didn’t end there. Just five years later, in 1989, nursery workers in Islington were forced to strike again—this time to defend the very gains they had previously won. Once again, staffing ratios and conditions were under threat.

These repeated struggles speak to a larger truth: victories won through collective action can be eroded if not defended. That’s why strong union organisation and active engagement remain essential.

Why Aren’t More Nursery Workers in Unions?

Despite the success of the Islington strike and the clear benefits of collective action, nursery workers today remain among the least-unionised parts of the public sector. Why?

First, many nursery workers—especially in private settings—are on precarious contracts. Part-time roles, casual hours, and limited job security make it harder to organise. It’s not uncommon for workers to be unaware that they even can join a union.

Second, there’s a persistent myth that caring work isn’t “real work.” This damaging notion suggests that childcare is a “natural” extension of femininity and therefore doesn’t require the same protections, training, or pay as other professions. This sexist narrative has kept pay low and discouraged organising.

Third, nursery settings are often small and dispersed. Without a concentrated workforce under one roof, it can be difficult to build momentum or share information about workplace rights and union membership.

Finally, there is sometimes a lack of confidence. Nursery staff may feel unsure about raising concerns, worried about reprisals, or simply overworked and exhausted. This is where unions can make all the difference.

Why Nursery Workers Should Be Unionised

Unions provide nursery workers with collective power, protection, and a voice.

When you’re in a union, you’re not alone. You have access to legal advice and support. You have the backing of experienced negotiators. You have the chance to push for better pay, better staffing, and better conditions—not just for yourself, but for your colleagues and the children you care for.

Unions also fight for the future of early years provision itself. As government austerity cuts continue to undermine public nurseries, and as private providers chase profit over quality, it is union members who stand up for what childcare should be: publicly funded, accessible, safe, and nurturing.

When nursery workers are unionised, they are also part of a wider movement. They can link arms with teaching assistants, school staff, cleaners, council workers—and build the kind of solidarity that changes not just workplaces, but whole communities.

The Islington strike proves this. Those workers were supported by other council departments, by parents, by local campaigners, by the miners and their families. That kind of strength doesn’t come from silence or isolation. It comes from organisation and courage.

A Podcast Tells the Story

A new podcast series, Childcare Voices, tells the story of the Islington strike in the words of those who lived it. Produced by On the Record, a community history organisation, the podcast is the result of a training and production project involving nursery workers, parents, nannies, trade unionists and community organisers.

One of the producers, herself a nursery worker, said:

“During my career, I have seen pressures on nursery staff increase to almost unmanageable levels. Last year, in response to a plan to make redundancies, trade union members in my nursery voted to strike. It feels unjust that as levels of need and childhood poverty have risen, capacity in quality public nursery provision such as mine has reduced.”

This personal connection between the past and present is what makes Childcare Voices so powerful. It isn’t just a history lesson. It’s a call to action.

The podcast has already received recognition, winning silver in the grassroots production category at the 2024 Audio Production Awards. It brings to life a vital, often forgotten, chapter in working-class history and highlights how collective action can shape services that matter to us all.

Lessons for Today

The Islington strike should not be seen as a one-off moment. It is a case study in how low-paid, marginalised workers—often ignored or dismissed—can challenge powerful employers and win. It’s also a warning that victories can be short-lived without continued pressure and vigilance.

Listen to the podcast here: https://shows.acast.com/childcare-voices

By Maria Camara

Farage is No Friend of Working People: A Personal View from Pat Harrington, General Secretary of Solidarity

The recent successes of Reform UK at the ballot box – including a by-election win in Runcorn and the Doncaster mayoralty – have understandably caused a stir in political and trade union circles. As General Secretary of Solidarity, I believe we must take these developments seriously and respond with clarity and resolve. Let me be clear: in my personal opinion, Nigel Farage is no friend of working people.

I understand why some working-class voters are tempted by Farage and his Reform UK movement. They are fed up. Years of neglect, stagnant wages, crumbling public services, and a political establishment that appears more interested in spin than substance have left many disillusioned. Farage appears to speak plainly and taps into genuine frustrations. That appeal should not be dismissed or ridiculed. But it should be challenged, because behind the rhetoric lies a record that working people must be made aware of.

Farage’s Voting Record: Repeatedly Opposed to Workers’ Rights

As the Trades Union Congress (TUC) recently revealed, Farage’s voting record speaks volumes. Time and again, he has voted against the interests of the very people he claims to represent:

He voted against banning zero-hours contracts, which trap workers in uncertainty and insecurity.
He opposed banning ‘fire and rehire’, a cruel tactic allowing employers to sack workers and offer them worse terms.
He voted against sick pay from day one, leaving workers vulnerable when they fall ill.
He rejected stronger protections for pregnant workers.
He voted against collective bargaining rights and trade union access in workplaces.

This isn’t a handful of votes taken out of context. It’s a pattern. A worldview that prioritises deregulation, corporate interests and weakening the power of organised labour. That’s why the focus of all trade unions, in my view, must be on exposing this anti-worker record every time Reform UK is discussed.

Farage’s Persona vs. Farage’s Politics

Farage has built his brand as an anti-establishment rebel. Many see him as someone who is willing to say what others won’t. But we must ask: who benefits from his policies? Paul Nowak of the TUC put it well when he described Farage as a “political fraud cosplaying as a working-class champion.”

Reform UK’s economic platform, far from supporting workers, offers a Thatcherite rehash:

£50 billion in public service cuts.
Slashing corporation tax from 25% to 15%, giving more to big business.
No plan for raising wages or expanding workplace rights.

This is not a programme for social justice or economic renewal. It’s the same old trickle-down economics, dressed up with a Union Jack.

Understanding the Appeal, Changing the Conversation

To defeat Farage and Reform UK, we must first understand why their message resonates. People are angry – and rightly so. But anger must be channelled toward those responsible: the employers who exploit, the politicians who betray, the system that puts profit over people.

The job of trade unions is not only to defend workers at the workplace but also to provide clarity in the public debate where workers rights are at issue. In that spirit, I urge all unions to put Reform UK’s record on workers’ rights front and centre in our campaigning.

We need to:

Challenge the myth that Farage stands with ordinary people.
Remind voters what his voting record really says.
Offer a clear, alternative vision rooted in solidarity, justice, and dignity at work.

What Solidarity Stands For

At Solidarity, we stand unapologetically for working people. That means:

Fighting for secure jobs and decent pay.
Defending collective bargaining and union rights.
Demanding fair sick pay, pensions, and protection for the vulnerable.
Building unity, not scapegoating the marginalised.

We also believe in having an open, honest discussion about migration, immigration and refugee policy. That conversation should aim to achieve a fair and humane policy – one that is grounded in reality and guided by compassion, while also maintaining the support of the British people. We want a harmonious national consensus, not culture wars or scapegoating.

The future for our class will not be won by blaming migrants, attacking public services, or cutting taxes for the rich. It will be won by building power from the ground up.

Nigel Farage may talk like he understands working people, but his record shows otherwise. Let’s make sure everyone knows it.

In solidarity,

Pat Harrington
General Secretary, Solidarity

UK Universities Face Funding Crisis and Job Cuts

1,361 words, 7 minutes read time.

UK universities are in the grip of a crisis, one that has been years in the making. At the heart of the problem is an unsustainable funding model that has seen institutions become dangerously dependent on international student fees. As the global climate shifts, with fewer overseas students choosing to study in the UK, that reliance has proven disastrous. Now, university staff are being forced to pay the price for years of short-term thinking and market-driven policies.

This addiction to high overseas tuition has left many institutions exposed. With new visa restrictions and a fall in applications, universities have seen income from international students collapse. The result is a string of budget shortfalls and panicked cost-cutting. But the blame lies not with students or staff, but with a funding system that treats education as a commodity and universities as businesses.

At the University of Bedfordshire, a predicted £5 million deficit has been blamed on falling international student numbers. This, after the university posted healthy surpluses in previous years. It is a familiar story. Across the UK, universities are plugging the gaps by cutting courses, freezing recruitment, and, most damaging of all, laying off staff.

Financial Instability and Mass Redundancies

The scale of job cuts now facing the sector is unprecedented. More than 30 universities have announced major cuts in the past year. Over 5,000 staff roles are already confirmed to go, and the final total may be closer to 10,000 if institutions follow through on planned savings. The impact on staff morale and student experience is profound. Courses are disappearing, workloads are increasing, and the quality of higher education is under threat.

At Cardiff, management has threatened to close entire departments, including nursing and music. Bangor, too, plans to shed 200 jobs to balance its books. From Edinburgh to Kingston, institutions are haemorrhaging talent. The message to staff is clear: your loyalty, experience and dedication count for little when the bottom line is in trouble.

This isn’t just a higher education issue. It’s a community issue. Universities are often the largest employers in their areas. Redundancies on this scale will have a ripple effect across local economies, affecting everything from housing to hospitality. Whole towns risk being hollowed out by a funding crisis they did not create.

Strike Action in Defence of Education

Faced with this onslaught, university workers are not taking the cuts lying down. Across the country, members of the University and College Union (UCU) are striking to defend their jobs and the future of public education.

At Brunel University, staff walked out in early April and are planning further strike days this month. The dispute began when the university announced plans to make 135 academic staff redundant. But what started as a local row has grown into a broader fight about priorities and governance. Despite making huge investments in infrastructure, Brunel management is now trying to balance the books by gutting its academic workforce. In response, UCU has launched an academic boycott of the university, urging academics and institutions to cease collaboration until the threat of compulsory redundancies is removed.

At Dundee University, the institution initially proposed cutting over 700 jobs, sparking swift and furious opposition from staff, students, and the wider community. UCU Scotland official Mary Senior described it as “academic and economic vandalism.” After weeks of pressure, the university has scaled back its proposals. As of 29 April, the number of job cuts has been reduced, and there is a commitment to avoid compulsory redundancies where possible. While this is a welcome move, the fight is far from over.

At Keele University, lecturers have begun five days of strike action in protest against job cuts. The university plans to merge the schools of humanities and social sciences, which UCU argues will result in the loss of 24 full-time jobs. Union officials reject the university’s reasoning, arguing that the financial challenges cited do not justify the redundancies. The strike action is scheduled to continue into early May.

At Durham University, management is attempting to cut £20 million from its staffing budget. Staff voted overwhelmingly for strike action, with 72 per cent backing a walkout and an even higher number supporting action short of a strike. The planned cuts would see around 200 roles go, primarily in professional services. Staff argue that management is making a choice, not responding to necessity, and are demanding a halt to forced redundancies.

At Cardiff University, planned strike action was called off after an agreement was reached to halt compulsory redundancies for the remainder of 2025. The UCU held two votes, overwhelmingly passing a motion to suspend industrial action in exchange for management’s commitment to avoid forced job losses this year. However, concerns remain about the future, as redundancies could still be implemented beyond 2025.

These are not isolated cases. UCU members are also taking or preparing action at Edinburgh, Canterbury Christ Church, Bangor, Bedfordshire, Bournemouth, Bradford, Kingston, the University of East Anglia, Newcastle, and Sheffield Hallam. The common thread is a broken funding system and university managements more willing to axe jobs than challenge the status quo.

The Real Cost of Marketisation

This crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It is the result of decades of underfunding and marketisation. The shift toward tuition fee dependence, particularly on international students, has turned universities into risk-laden ventures. Meanwhile, senior management pay has ballooned, buildings have gone up, and yet the very people who deliver education are being pushed out.

The result is a sector that is both overstretched and under threat. Staff are expected to do more with less, while students pay more for a poorer experience. Administrative functions are hollowed out, academic departments are merged or shut, and long-standing staff are replaced with short-term contracts or not replaced at all.

The irony is that many of these institutions were thriving not long ago. But they were built on shaky ground. When international student numbers drop or inflation bites, there is no safety net. The government has refused to step in with meaningful support, even as devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales have begun offering emergency funds.

Solidarity and Resistance

In the face of this, workers are fighting back. The UCU’s “Stop the Cuts: Fund Higher Education NOW!” campaign is building momentum. From campus rallies to national protests, the union is calling for an emergency funding settlement and a root-and-branch review of how universities are funded.

Solidarity is not just a slogan. It’s working. At Dundee, it forced management to think again. At other institutions, it is giving staff the courage to stand together and say “no more”. Students, too, are showing strong support for their lecturers and support staff. They know that what’s at stake isn’t just jobs, but their education and the future of public higher education.

From the perspective of Solidarity trade union, these strikes are both necessary and justified. Our union stands with university workers. We reject the idea that the only way to fix financial problems is to sack the very people who make universities function. We believe that education is a public good, not a business, and should be funded accordingly.

A Call for Change

The crisis in higher education is a symptom of a wider problem. It’s about what kind of society we want to live in. Do we value education? Do we want secure jobs and thriving communities? Or are we content to let accountants and market forces determine the fate of our universities?

This is not just about resisting cuts. It’s about demanding a new vision for higher education. That means ending the reliance on international student fees, restoring public funding, and ensuring that universities are run for the benefit of staff, students and the wider community – not for profit, prestige projects or inflated salaries at the top.

It’s time for government to act. But it’s also time for us, collectively, to stand together. Staff, students, unions and communities must unite to defend our universities. Because if we don’t, we risk losing them. And with them, the promise of higher education as a path to knowledge, opportunity and social good.

Solidarity works. And we need it now more than ever.

By Maria Camara

Workers’ Memorial Day: Remembering Lives Lost at Work

Monday 28 April 2025 is Workers’ Memorial Day. It’s the day we remember all those killed, injured, or made ill because of their jobs. We’re asking everyone to wear something red that day. A red ribbon. A red t-shirt. Even a red badge. Whatever works. It’s a small gesture, but it makes a clear point: no one should die just for going to work.

The truth behind the headlines

Workplace deaths aren’t “tragic accidents.” They’re the result of bad decisions. Unsafe buildings. Poor training. Overwork. Stress. Some employers cut corners. Some push people too hard. And some just don’t care. And while they save money, people get hurt. Or worse.

Hundreds of workers in the UK died at work last year. Thousands more became ill or injured. The real number is probably even higher. Stress, anxiety, and depression are now major health risks. Some workers have taken their own lives because of what’s happening at work. This isn’t just sad. It’s a scandal.

Safe work is a basic right

Health and safety isn’t about ticking boxes. It’s about staying alive. It’s about making sure people don’t fall off scaffolding. Don’t collapse from heat and pressure. Don’t break their backs lifting things. Don’t end up burned out or traumatised. And yet we keep hearing the same things: “We haven’t had time to do the checks.” “It’s only a small risk.” “It’ll be fine.” That’s what they always say — until someone ends up in hospital. Or in a body bag.

What we’re calling for

We want action. Not talk. Not sympathy. Real change. That means: The right to say “no” to unsafe work — without losing your job. Better protection for people who speak out. Bosses held to account when workers get hurt. Mental health treated as seriously as physical injuries.Stronger inspections and real penalties for unsafe practices.None of this happens by itself. Workers make it happen. Union reps make it happen. Standing together makes it happen.

Remember and resist

On 28 April, we remember those who didn’t make it home.

We remember the cleaner with no PPE. The delivery driver forced to keep going in a storm. The care worker left alone on a night shift. And we don’t just remember them — we organise. We speak up. We refuse to accept it. So this Workers’ Memorial Day, wear red. Talk to your mates. Raise the issue at work. If it’s not safe, say so. Because the best way to honour the dead — is to protect the living.

By Maria Camara

UK Supreme Court’s 2025 Ruling: ‘Woman’ Defined by Biological Sex – Context, Implications, and Reactions

In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment confirming that under the Equality Act 2010, the term “woman” refers to a biological female – in other words, one’s sex assigned at birth.[1] This unanimous ruling by five justices resolved a long-running legal dispute and clarified the law’s intent regarding sex-based rights.

Legal Background

The Equality Act 2010 is the UK’s comprehensive anti-discrimination law, establishing sex as a protected characteristic alongside others like race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender reassignment. Notably, the Act’s glossary defines “woman” as “a female of any age” and “man” as “a male of any age.”[2] The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), passed in response to a 2002 European Court of Human Rights ruling, allows transgender people to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) legally recognizing their acquired gender. A GRC holder is to be treated as their affirmed gender “for all purposes” of law (with a few exceptions).[3] For nearly two decades, the working understanding in the UK was that a trans woman with a GRC would generally be regarded as legally female (a “woman”) in most contexts.

The Supreme Court’s decision in 2025 upended this assumption by drawing a distinction between gender identity and the protected category of sex in the Equality Act. As Deputy Court President Lord Patrick Hodge put it, the EA “deals with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.”[4]

The For Women Scotland Case

The case was brought by feminist advocacy group For Women Scotland (FWS). In 2018, the Scottish Parliament passed the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act, aiming for 50/50 representation of men and women on public sector boards. The Scottish government’s accompanying guidance stated that for these purposes, a “woman” included trans women with a GRC, treating them as legally female.[5] FWS – supported financially by author J.K. Rowling – challenged this guidance, arguing that the Scottish government had overstepped its devolved powers by effectively redefining “woman” beyond the meaning intended in the UK-wide Equality Act.

After losing in the Scottish courts in 2022, FWS was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, which heard the case in November 2024.

Supreme Court’s Decision and Reasoning

On April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in FWS’s favor.[6] The central question was whether a transgender woman with a GRC counts as a woman under the Equality Act 2010. The court’s answer was a clear “no.”

In an 88-page judgment, the justices held that the ordinary, “plain and unambiguous” meaning of woman in the Equality Act “corresponds with… biological characteristics,” i.e. someone born female.[7] They emphasized that sex in the statute means biological sex, and this had always been Parliament’s intent. Any broader interpretation (e.g. including those who changed legal gender) would, in their view, render parts of the Act “incoherent and unworkable.”

Lord Hodge noted that interpreting sex as “certificated gender” would produce “heterogeneous groupings” and clash with specific provisions on pregnancy, maternity, and sex-specific protections that logically refer only to biological sex.

Workplace and Employment Implications

The Supreme Court’s ruling carries significant implications for workplaces, employers, and trade unions, especially regarding policies on sex and gender. By legally cementing that “women” means only biological females in the Equality Act, the judgment potentially affects everything from hiring practices and diversity policies to provision of single-sex facilities at work.[8]

Single-Sex Spaces and Facilities

Employers that provide sex-specific spaces – such as women’s toilets, changing rooms, or shower facilities – may feel more confident in restricting these to biologically female employees. Previously, many organizations adopted gender identity-inclusive approaches as a matter of good practice or legal caution. While the law already permitted exclusion of trans people from single-sex spaces if it was a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”, the Supreme Court has “cleared up [that] legal ambiguity,” confirming that such spaces can be lawfully reserved for natal women.[9]

Practically, this may make it easier for employers to exclude trans women from, say, a women’s locker room or female dormitory at a work site, on the basis that they are not legally women. Employers should still tread carefully: any exclusion must be justifiable to avoid unlawful gender reassignment discrimination.[10]

Recruitment and Job Roles

Employers sometimes use genuine occupational requirements to hire only women for certain roles – for example, a counselor for female rape survivors. Under the clarified definition, only biological females count as women for such roles. A trans woman applicant, even with a GRC, could now be lawfully treated as ineligible for a “women-only” position, based solely on her sex at birth.[11]

Equal Opportunities and Diversity Policies

Many employers have adopted expansive equality policies that go beyond the letter of the law. While these commitments aren’t directly affected by the court ruling, the legal baseline has shifted. Employers must be mindful that affirmative action or quotas for women (e.g., in governance or board appointments) cannot automatically include trans women unless this is explicitly stated as a policy choice.[12]

Workplace Dress Codes and HR Practices

The ruling may also affect workplace inclusion. HR professionals have observed that ensuring a welcoming environment for trans employees might become more challenging. One employment law partner noted that “because of the ruling, ensuring workplaces are welcoming places for trans people will be an ‘uphill battle’.”[13] Trans employees could feel alienated if workplace policies start distinguishing “legal women” versus “trans women.”

Trade Unions and Worker Representation

Trade unions – with responsibilities to advocate for equality and represent all members – must navigate this ruling sensitively. A union like Solidarity, for instance, may find the decision validates long-held concerns of some members about preserving sex-based protections. However, they must still robustly support trans members, who are protected under the Equality Act’s gender reassignment provision. No union can lawfully deny representation based on a member’s transgender status.[14]

Unions may also play a crucial role in ensuring that employers implement the ruling fairly – avoiding blanket bans or policies that create hostile environments for trans workers. Updated guidance for shop stewards and equality reps may be necessary to handle sensitive disputes with clarity and fairness.

Consequences for the Trans and Cisgender Communities

The Supreme Court’s decision has profound implications for both transgender people and cisgender women, particularly in their access to services, spaces, and opportunities previously understood to be protected under the broader interpretation of the term “woman.”

Reactions from Trans Communities and Advocacy Groups

LGBTQ+ organizations including Stonewall and TransActual UK have expressed concern that this ruling may reinforce discriminatory behaviour and deepen social exclusion. They argue that although protections under the gender reassignment characteristic remain in place, the ruling effectively creates a legal distinction that reduces the scope of rights and recognitions trans people may have previously assumed.[15]

Jane Fae, director of TransActual, warned the ruling could have a symbolic impact that makes trans people feel “as if they have been told they do not exist.” While not creating new offences, the judgment may be misinterpreted by service providers or individuals, potentially increasing the risk of exclusion and misapplication of the law.[16]

Access to Single-Sex Spaces and Public Services

Trans women may now face greater exclusion from rape crisis centres, domestic violence refuges, hospital wards, and changing rooms, even when they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The ruling confirms that these services can legally define access by biological sex, provided the exclusion is proportionate and justified.[17]

NHS guidance from 2019, which stated that trans patients should be accommodated according to their gender presentation, is expected to be revised to align with the ruling. Baroness Falkner of the EHRC has indicated that the NHS and similar service providers will need to “start to implement the new legal reasoning and produce their exceptions forthwith.”[18]

Public Boards and Civic Participation

Trans women will no longer qualify as women for the purposes of measures aimed at achieving gender balance on public sector boards, such as those legislated for by the Scottish Government. This has immediate implications for civic representation and may set a precedent for similar assessments across the UK.

Responses from Cisgender Women

Some gender-critical feminists and advocacy groups such as For Women Scotland and the LGB Alliance celebrated the ruling, calling it a “victory for women’s rights” and a confirmation that women-only spaces and services should be protected as such.[19] They argue this offers legal support to cisgender women who have raised concerns about privacy, safety, and dignity in shared spaces.

However, many cisgender women and feminists who support transgender inclusion have responded with dismay, noting that trans women have used these spaces safely for years. Critics worry the ruling may embolden harassment and vigilance by the public in gender-policing spaces like toilets and changing areas.

Legal Ambiguity for Trans Men and Non-Binary People

Interestingly, the ruling also means that trans men – individuals assigned female at birth – are still considered women under the Equality Act, unless future legislation states otherwise. This has potential implications for inclusion in women-only spaces and in measures designed to promote female representation or opportunity. For non-binary individuals, who do not identify strictly as male or female, the ruling provides no clear guidance, leaving them in a legal grey area.

Social and Psychological Impacts

Though the court emphasized that trans individuals are still protected under the Equality Act, the symbolic message of the ruling is profound. Many in the trans community feel relegated or erased, while some cisgender women feel that their rights are being newly upheld. The challenge for service providers, employers, and advocacy groups is to ensure that in asserting sex-based rights, society does not inadvertently foster exclusion, hostility, or harm.

Comparative International Legal Context

The UK Supreme Court’s ruling has placed the country at one end of a spectrum of international approaches to legal definitions of sex and gender. While some democracies are codifying sex as based on biology, others are expanding legal frameworks to affirm gender identity regardless of sex assigned at birth.

United States

In the United States, the legal approach is more fragmented. The landmark Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) ruled that firing someone for being transgender constitutes discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex-based discrimination.[20] However, definitions vary by state. Several U.S. states have passed legislation explicitly defining sex as immutable and based on birth anatomy, similar to the UK’s new interpretation. Conversely, the federal government under the Biden administration has broadly interpreted sex-based protections to include gender identity.

Canada

Canada has enshrined gender identity and expression as protected categories under the Canadian Human Rights Act and provincial human rights codes. Since 2017, federal law explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, and most provinces allow for gender marker changes on identification documents without surgical requirements.[21] Legal sex is defined by self-identification in most contexts, and transgender individuals are fully recognized in the gender they live in.

European Union

Across the EU, many countries have moved toward gender self-identification. For instance, Ireland, Denmark, and Spain allow individuals to change legal gender based on self-declaration without medical certification. Spain’s 2023 “Ley Trans” legislation allows individuals over 16 to change their legal sex based on self-identification, aligning with progressive EU standards.[22]

However, not all European countries are aligned. Poland and Hungary have taken restrictive stances, with Hungary banning legal gender changes altogether in 2020. In general, though, EU human rights case law, including decisions by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), has supported trans rights, particularly through privacy and non-discrimination provisions.

Australia and New Zealand

In Australia, federal and state laws vary, but generally include gender identity as a protected attribute. Court rulings have recognized trans individuals in their affirmed gender, and several states allow self-identification for legal gender change. New Zealand introduced self-ID for gender on birth certificates in 2023, marking a significant shift toward gender autonomy.[23]

Sports and Global Bodies

Internationally, governing bodies like World Athletics and World Rugby have introduced policies restricting trans women’s participation in female competitions, citing fairness and safety. The UK ruling may reinforce similar domestic policies, although interpretations continue to evolve.

Summary

Compared to its peers, the UK now occupies a more restrictive position on the legal definition of sex. While many liberal democracies are moving toward gender-inclusive frameworks, the UK has clarified a biological interpretation of sex for equality law purposes. This divergence may have implications for future international human rights reviews or legal conflicts involving cross-border rights recognition.

Big Business Wants to Block Your Rights at Work – We Can’t Let Them

In an open letter, organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry and British Chambers of Commerce voiced their concerns. Others joined them in warning that the legislation would hurt growth. They also cautioned it would encourage conflict. Their concerns? That providing workers with proper rights, like fair notice, is problematic. Offering guaranteed hours can be challenging. Protecting workers from unfair dismissal might somehow damage the economy.

Let’s not be fooled.

The Employment Rights Bill includes modest but much-needed reforms. It would clamp down on exploitative zero-hours contracts. It would extend sick pay to all. It would scrap the draconian Minimum Service Levels Act, which restricts workers’ ability to take lawful strike action. And it would make sure employees can’t be dismissed unfairly from the moment they start a job.

These aren’t radical demands. They’re basic standards in any society that values dignity and decency in the workplace.

Yet big business leaders claim these measures are too costly or burdensome. That offering stable hours to people who work regular shifts is ‘unnecessary admin’. That allowing staff to challenge unfair treatment will put employers off hiring. The same tired arguments were wheeled out decades ago when the minimum wage was introduced. They were wrong then, and they’re no more convincing now.

The truth is, good employers already treat their staff fairly. They value loyalty, stability, and wellbeing. It’s not fairness that threatens economic performance – it’s insecurity, low morale, and poor conditions. Reforms like these don’t stifle growth; they make it more sustainable.

Let’s also remember: these proposed changes are popular. Surveys show that managers and workers alike support stronger protections. They recognise that rights at work aren’t just about fairness – they’re essential for productivity, health, and trust.

The Bill itself is already a scaled-back version of what was promised in Labour’s original New Deal for Working People. Unfortunately, it falls short. That plan included meaningful sector-wide bargaining, proper enforcement, and an end to fire-and-rehire tactics. It aligned the UK with international labour standards. That’s the real vision we should be aiming for.

Further dilution of the current proposals would serve only one purpose. It would keep the door open for rogue employers to exploit vulnerable workers. To keep wages low, rights weak, and unions sidelined.

We need to stop pretending that the voices of corporate lobbyists are neutral or balanced. They represent those with the most to lose from fairer treatment of the people who keep this country running. These include the cleaners, carers, drivers, hospitality staff, engineers, and countless others.

Solidarity stands firmly behind the Employment Rights Bill. We call on the government to strengthen it, not strip it back. And we urge Parliament to stand with working people – not those clinging to a broken status quo.

Working people have waited long enough. Now is the time to deliver.

Solidarity stands with Birmingham’s striking bin workers

575 words, 3 minutes read time.

Solidarity is proud to stand with the Birmingham refuse workers, who are taking all-out strike action against disgraceful pay cuts and job threats. These are not minor changes — some of these key workers stand to lose as much as £8,000 a year. That’s nearly a quarter of their wages. And for what? To balance the books after years of mismanagement, while those at the top carry on unaffected.

Now we’re hearing calls from Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and Local Government Secretary, for workers to accept what she calls an “improved” offer. Speaking during a photo-op with local volunteers tidying rubbish left by the strike, she said:

“The people of Birmingham are our first priority — this dispute is causing misery and disruption to residents and the backlog must be dealt with quickly to address public health risks.

There is now a better offer on the table and I would urge Unite to suspend the action and accept the improved deal so we achieve fairness for both workers and residents of this city.”

But where is the fairness in asking workers to take a 25% hit to their pay? What’s “improved” about a deal that still leaves people struggling to pay their bills?

Sharon Graham, Unite’s general secretary, rightly challenged the hypocrisy:

“Whilst it is helpful that the government finally realised after weeks that they have a role in this dispute, the constant attacks and briefings against these low-paid bin workers is frankly a disgrace.

This dispute is not about greed, or increased pay. This dispute is about workers losing up to £8,000 of their pay — which for some is almost a quarter.

A notable point was made by one of our members, which Unite believes sums up where we are with this council and could be with others: ‘The council are saying that we should share the pain but not one councillor, including the leader, has been asked to give up a quarter of their pay.

We thought when Labour came in they would stop what was happening — we were wrong’.”

Instead of sitting down with the union and finding a just solution, the council and its allies have chosen confrontation. Strike-breakers have been brought in — untrained, non-union, and without the safety knowledge required for such work. This is a deeply irresponsible move that puts both the public and the scabs themselves at risk.

To make matters worse, the police have been deployed to monitor and intimidate lawful pickets. Why is public money being spent sending officers to watch workers standing up for their rights, rather than dealing with real threats to public safety? It’s a transparent attempt to suppress solidarity and send a message: “don’t step out of line.”

This isn’t just a Birmingham issue. It’s about the wider principle: do we allow public sector workers to be treated as disposable? Or do we fight back?

Bin workers were there during the pandemic. They worked through lockdown, often with little protection, to keep our communities clean. They didn’t ask for praise — they asked for fair pay. And this is how they’re repaid?

Solidarity condemns the use of strike-breakers and police pressure to undermine legitimate action. We stand firmly with the striking workers. Their fight is our fight — for dignity, fairness and respect at work.

If there’s any “pain to be shared,” it should start at the top. Until councillors take a 25% pay cut themselves, they’ve no business telling others to accept one.

By Maria Camara

Solidarity with British Industry: Why Buying British Is More Vital Than Ever by Pat Harrington

All political groups and unions must unite in a ‘Buy British campaign says Pat Harrington

1,235 words, 7 minutes read time.

The call to “Buy British” has never been a matter of nostalgia or jingoism. For trade unions like Solidarity and the wider Labour movement, it’s a practical, progressive tool to protect jobs, revive our manufacturing base, and build a more self-reliant, future-ready economy. Amid the upheavals of global supply chains, mounting geopolitical tensions, and the rise of protectionist policies from international powers like the United States, the case for using our collective spending power to support British industry has never been stronger.

Solidarity union has proudly led the charge, running several public campaigns urging consumers to choose British-made goods wherever possible. These campaigns are rooted in a simple yet powerful belief: when we buy British, we invest in British jobs, communities, and skills. It’s not just about waving the flag—it’s about economic justice, sustainability, and national resilience.

Historically, the Labour Party and trade unions have often championed “Buy British” initiatives during times of industrial crisis. In the 1970s and 1980s, as traditional industries faced collapse, union campaigns highlighted the importance of keeping jobs in Britain. The Transport & General Workers’ Union, for example, actively promoted British-made vehicles and products to protect domestic manufacturing. Labour governments of the past also embraced this approach. Harold Wilson praised grassroots initiatives such as the “I’m Backing Britain” campaign in the late 1960s, and the Labour manifesto of 1983 proposed import controls and prioritising British-made goods in public procurement. While these efforts were sometimes controversial, they were rooted in a shared commitment to national industrial renewal.

In more recent years, trade union federations like the TUC have published position papers advocating for a coherent industrial strategy. These documents emphasise the need for investment in high-value manufacturing, green energy, and infrastructure—areas where government procurement can and should favour domestic suppliers. Solidarity fully supports these calls and continues to argue that only with a long-term industrial plan can Britain secure its economic independence.

That said, not all political leaders have shown the same resolve. Some voices within the Labour Party have expressed hesitation. For instance, Chancellor Rachel Reeves recently stated that she would not back a consumer-focused “Buy British” campaign, arguing that such efforts risk encouraging economic nationalism. While Solidarity recognises the dangers of xenophobia or trade isolationism, we firmly disagree with this conclusion. We believe the British public should be encouraged and empowered to support local production—not out of hostility to others, but out of loyalty to the communities in which they live and work.

It is important to state clearly: Solidarity does not base its policy on a shallow anti-Americanism or target U.S. imports specifically. Our position is motivated by a sincere desire to see an independent and prosperous United Kingdom—capable of making and trading high-quality goods, resilient in the face of global shocks, and free to pursue its own economic strategy. Buying British, in our view, is not about closing ourselves off from the world; it’s about building a strong, confident nation that can compete globally from a position of strength.

This aspiration is only possible because of the freedoms we now possess outside the European Union. Many of the measures we advocate—strategic procurement, public investment in domestic industry, and local content rules—would have been difficult, if not impossible, under EU single market and state aid rules. Whatever one’s position on Brexit, it is clear that the UK is now uniquely positioned to chart its own industrial future. That opportunity must not be wasted.

We’ve seen firsthand how offshoring and deindustrialisation have hollowed out communities. Entire generations have been robbed of the skilled, secure work that once defined working-class life in Britain. Yet, instead of despair, we see opportunity: the chance to rebuild. Rebuilding the UK’s manufacturing base is not a backward-looking project. On the contrary, it’s the only credible path to long-term prosperity, especially in a world where supply lines can snap overnight and foreign governments act unilaterally to prioritise their own industries.

Take the example of the U.S. tariffs under the Trump administration—first on steel and aluminium, then on aircraft, and now the new blanket 10% tariffs and targeted car tariffs. These are not just abstract trade disputes; they’re direct threats to British workers. When tariffs shut out our exports, our factories suffer, our jobs disappear, and our communities pay the price. The only responsible response is to fight back—not with hollow slogans, but with investment, procurement, and a serious industrial strategy.

That’s why Solidarity supports the Labour Party’s calls for strategic procurement to favour UK suppliers. Labour’s proposals to rebuild manufacturing capacity, invest in green industry, and embed “Buy British” principles in public contracts are not just welcome—they are essential. The promise to make, buy, and sell more in Britain isn’t protectionism—it’s common sense. It’s about using the enormous power of public spending—over £270 billion a year—to secure good jobs, shorten supply chains, and reduce reliance on volatile global markets.

Technology sovereignty is also at stake. The UK cannot afford to be dependent on others for semiconductors, energy components, or the tools of the future economy. If we want to lead in clean energy, digital infrastructure, or medical innovation, we need to make sure we can build the necessary parts here at home. Buying British isn’t just about steel and cars—it’s about making sure the next generation of industry is made in Britain, by British workers, under decent conditions.

Solidarity’s message is clear: every purchase is a political act. When we buy a car made in Sunderland, a steel beam forged in Port Talbot, or a jacket sewn in Leicester, we’re casting a vote for good jobs, fair pay, and national self-respect. That’s why we continue to campaign not only for better trade policy, but for better choices at the till.

We urge the government—and all political parties—to take up this cause without hesitation. We must match rhetoric with resources, and slogans with strategy. Britain needs a serious industrial policy, clear local content rules in procurement, and investment in the industries of the future. The Labour Party and trade unions are right to demand these things. Solidarity is proud to stand alongside them.

Buying British is not a luxury—it is a necessity. Let’s make it a national priority.

Footnotes

Trump administration imposed 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminium in 2018, affecting UK exports.
UK exports of cars to the US exceed £8 billion annually; Trump threatened a 25% tariff on autos in 2019 and 2025.
Labour’s 2024 industrial strategy includes proposals for strategic procurement and rebuilding domestic supply chains.
Solidarity union campaigns have included local business spotlights, workplace posters, and social media campaigns to encourage consumers to buy British.
The TUC has long advocated for the revival of UK manufacturing and coordinated responses to trade shocks.
Labour and unions called for “Save Our Steel” procurement policies during the 2015-2016 crisis and after Trump-era tariffs.
The UK’s public procurement budget is approximately £270 billion per year, presenting a major opportunity to boost domestic industry.
Technology sovereignty has been cited by think tanks and unions as a key pillar of future industrial resilience.
The 1983 Labour manifesto proposed import controls and prioritisation of British-made goods.
Rachel Reeves, April 2025: “If every country decided to only buy things produced at home, that’s not a good way forward.”