Politics latest: MPs respond to Supreme Court ruling on gender (2025)

Tonight's show has finished. We'll be back with more politics news here tomorrow.

The Politics Hub will air at 7pm tomorrow. See you then.

In the meantime,tap here to follow Politics At Sam And Anne'sorhere for Electoral Dysfunction, Sky News' politics podcasts.

By Tamara Cohen, political correspondent

After a dramatic weekend with ministers passing legislation to wrest control of British Steel from its Chinese owners, Labour's China policy is under the spotlight.

Sir Keir Starmer's government came in, promising a "strategic and long-term" relationship with Beijing, after years of "inconsistency" under the Conservatives.

David Lammy went on the first trip by a foreign secretary in six years.Sir Keir met Xi Jinping in the margins of the G20in November and floated a UK-China visit.

Rachel Reeves went to the Chinese capital in January, saying her trip had secured£600m of growth for the UK economy.

Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds appeared to turn the tables this weekend, suggesting Chinese parent company Jingye had neglected or even sabotaged British Steel after buying it five years ago. He told Sky News he would not personally "bring a Chinese company into our steel sector".

He changed his tune on Tuesday, while visiting Scunthorpe to oversee the delivery of a shipment of materials, saying the row was just with one company.

It's now emerged he is expected to travel to China later this year, to restart a joint economic and trade commission which has been on ice since 2018.

But this is no return to the golden age of some years back.

Tensions in government over China may well emerge in the coming months - as the Treasury's drive for investment and growth jars with concerns over security.

You can read more of Tamara's analysis below:

Ali now asks Chapman whether she believes the judge when he says trans people will be protected by the judgment issued by the Supreme Court today.

She says that while he was correct to say there are protections in law for trans people in the 2020 Equality Act, the issue was more about the "culture" that has developed.

Turning to the judgment, Chapman say she does not think it "draws a line under that at all".

"It certainly doesn't prevent things happening. It may offer protections once bad things have happened, once harassment, once discrimination, once bigotry, once assaults have happened."

Chapman ends her interview with Ali with her fear that "groups of people aren't going to stop now".

"They aren't going to be satisfied with today's ruling. We know that there are individuals and there are groups who actually want to roll back even further - they want to get rid of the Gender Recognition Act from 2004.

"I think today's ruling just emboldens those views."

Next, Ali hears from Maggie Chapman MSP, for the Scottish Greens.

She says her reaction to the judgment has been one of "concern and disappointment".

"I am concerned...about what this might mean for trans people and for the services and facilities they have been using and have had access to for decades now," she says.

"One of the grave concerns that we have with this ruling is that it will embolden people to challenge trans people who have every right to access services," she says.

She adds that there have been some "questions around what it might mean for people who deliver services as well".

"We know that over the last few years....their lives have become increasingly difficult, they have been blocked from accessing services they need," she adds.

Asked whether she believes the judgment could draw a line under the culture war, Chapman says: "Today's judgment only stokes that culture war further".

Duffield is now asked what she thinks the Supreme Court ruling will mean in practice.

She says there will be "complexities" but that the law "has been very clear".

"People can still do what they want to, but they're going to have to face up to the fact that women are going to take them to court, potentially, and we're going to win because of the law... we always do actually, in all these cases.

"But the law has just been absolutely made clear that we have the right to challenge those things."

Asked whether she thinks the Supreme Court's ruling will lead to a change in the way the Labour Party approaches the issue, Duffield says: "I'd like to think so.

"Certainly women like me and all of the gender critical, so-called, feminists who've been very silent, very quiet in Labour and haven't supported me - perhaps they'll feel braver now about speaking out. "

Ali is now hearing from Rosie Duffield, the independent MP for Canterbury who quit Labour last year over differences in opinion over policy, as well as the prime minister's decision to accept thousands of pounds worth of gifts while in opposition.

While in the party, Ms Duffield consistently expressed opposition to transgender women being able to access single-sex spaces and suggested Sir Keir Starmer had a "problem with women".

Ali now turns to today's ruling, in which the Supreme Court found that "woman" and "sex" refer to a biological woman and biological sex in the Equality Act 2010 .

She reads out a comment by fellow independent MP John McDonnell, who wrote on X: "The fact the court failed to hear the voice of a single trans person may help explain why today’s decision lacked humanity and fairness and instead replaced them with a narrow definition of the Equality Act.

"There has to be a better and empathetic way forward that respects trans rights."

'It's about women's rights'

Asked what she makes of McDonnell's words, Duffield says: "I think it's a real shame that those who've been in the party for ages fail to put women's rights at the centre of our political movement.

"Women are 51% of the population. This ruling doesn't affect trans people in the slightest. It's about women's rights: women's rights to single sex spaces, women's rights, not to be discriminated against.

"It literally doesn't change a single thing for trans rights and that lack of understanding from a senior politician about the law is a bit worrying, actually."

Ali then presses Duffield on whether she has some sympathy with trans people, whom the judge said were a vulnerable and often harassed minority.

She replies: "It's nothing to do with this ruling, but I've always had sympathy for them. They are protected in the Equality Act as they always should have been.

"Trans rights are the same as every other human right, but women have come across the fact that our rights have clashed with men with a gender recognition certificate, and now people who just say that they are women and people who self-identify into women's groups will no longer be allowed to do so."

By Connor Gillies, Scotland correspondent

For years there has been a toxic, emotion-driven debate over gender and sex in this country. Today came clarity.

This was the legal crescendo in a saga that has rolled through the courts for more than half a decade.

It impacts half of the population in England, Scotland and Wales.

Five judges at the highest civil court in the land were unanimous: the legal definition of a woman isbased on biological sex.

It essentially means holders of gender recognition certificates are not women in the eyes of the law.

Without getting bogged down in the legal technicalities, this whole case centred on two pieces of Westminster legitimation, meaning the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

Those with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) have lived for the last 20 years on the basis that the document they possess changes their sex for "all purposes".

Later anti-discrimination laws, the Equality Act, stated trans people could be excluded from women-only spaces in some circumstances.

Women's rights campaigners took the case to court to seek clarity after the Scottish government tried to include trans women in quotas for gender balance on public sector boards.

This definitive decision today in London has immediate real-world consequences.

You can read more from Connor on the Sky News website:

Ali Fortescue is back with the day's biggest political stories on today's episode of the Politics Hub.

Watch live via the stream at the top of this page, or follow the latest updates here.

We're pausing our coverage in the Politics Hub for a few hours.

But don't fret - we'll be back at 7pm for live coverage from the Politics Hub With Ali Fortescue.

Until then, you can scroll through the page to catch up on today.

Prisons across England and Wales are at their highest capacity for months, with fewer cells available than at any time this year.

There are fewer than 1,000 spare prison cells across England and Wales, a record low for this year.

Only 961 spaces are now available, meaning prisons are now almost 98.9% full, according to new government figures.

Watch: The early release scheme was criticised at the time

Ministers will be under increased pressure to act as it means the prison estate is now under more strain than it has been for more than six months.

This includes when the government was forced to release around 3,000 prisoners early to avoid overcrowding in autumn last year - a move the Conservatives called a "rookie error".

The Howard League, a charity calling for reform of the prison system, said the new figures shows the system is "failing" and "unsustainable".

It added it "could not be clearer that further action is necessary" and called on the government to send fewer people to prison.

There are just 551 empty places in men's prisons, and 261 in women's prisons across England and Wales, as of 14 April.