The issue of the provision of toilets and the policy surrounding their use within council-owned buildings has been raised again in chambers, with a view of obtaining King’s Counsel Opinion on how a Supreme Court Judgement applies to policies in ABC Council.
Raising the issue at a full council meeting on Tuesday, TUV Councillor Keith Ratcliffe sought clarification on the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland’s legal paper focused on “the meanings of “sex”, “men”, “women” and “gender reassignment” in equality and allied legislation in Northern Ireland and interim information for employers, service providers and public authorities”.
Referring to an issue previously raised in council, the councillor recalled an instance where a group of girls aged five to 18 years had attended a dance school event at Craigavon Civic Centre but, due to the lack of changing facilities at the centre, were forced to use the ladies’ toilets, where he said he was “shocked and concerned” to discover that council’s policy allowed biological males to enter the toilets.
While the councillor did take the time to thank council staff for the provision of a “fantastic facility at the Civic Centre”, and added that “all had gone very well at the event”, he stressed that whilst the Equality Commission had issued “interim guidance, it was important to note that distinguished legal authorities had made clear that the Northern Ireland Protocol had no bearing on the United Kingdom Supreme Court Judgement in this matter”.
Highlighting a report by The Newsletter, Councillor Ratcliffe explained that the publication found that the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission had received “legal advice indicating that a policy based on self-declared gender identity, rather than biological reality, was incompatible with existing law”.
Added the councillor: “Should council fail to ensure that its policies were in line with the law, it would expose itself to significant legal risk. In such circumstances, the cost of obtaining authoritative legal advice would not only be justified but would represent a prudent and necessary measure to safeguard the financial and legal interests of ratepayers.”
He then drew members’ attention to a recent development involving the BBC’s ‘The State of Us’ podcast. An episode of the podcast had previously commented on remarks he had made in the council chamber regarding this issue.
Said Councillor Ratcliffe: “Since the previous meeting the BBC had been forced into a rare and significant climbdown following a complaint lodged by the TUV Party regarding the episode of ‘The State of Us’ originally published on BBC Sounds on 9 May 2025.
“Far from impartial journalism, the programme leaned heavily into trans-activist talking points. Following the Party’s detailed complaint, the BBC had edited the original podcast to remove key content which it could not stand over. Notably, this included remarks by presenter Tara Mills who had questioned why Councillor Ratcliffe had raised concerns regarding council’s toilet policy in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling.
“That line amongst others had now been removed from the podcast. This should serve as a cautionary example to this council and he stated it would be wise to avoid missteps.”
Referring to the Equality Commission’s response, and thanking Legal, Governing and Monitoring Officer Kate McCusker for taking the time to go through this “extremely complicated” response, Councillor Ratcliffe added: “To be fair, it’s not really a clear response and it doesn’t really clear anything up at all.
“We need guidance and we need proper advice moving forward. I still believe that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court with a duty here to protect women, young girls within our facilities and I think the only option now is to get King’s Counsel advice going forward.
“As elected members within this council chamber we have a duty here to protect young girls and women using our facilities.”
Alderman Mark Baxter shared the views, saying: “We have no option but to get King’s Counsel advice.
“I know what they say about legal opinion, there are always two sides to these things. But the Supreme Court, to my mind, is the Supreme Court and it would be a big news story in the day if a judge over here, or lawyer over here, went against what the Supreme Court ruling was.
“I will put on record too, my sort of dismay at the regulations the council adopted in 2019 that we approached a group like Stonewall – who have a very controversial side to them – and that was very much in the media just a couple of years after.
“So at some stage – and I am taking advice on this in the background so its probably for governance and governance committee when that comes in September – I think we certainly need to revisit those guidelines as a matter of urgency, given the advice that this council took and who they took it from.. very much I suppose groups that would have an extremist view on trans rights.”
The Alderman was happy to second the Councillor Ratcliffe’s proposal.
Lord Mayor Stephen Moutray consulted Councillor Ratcliffe again to clarify that there were two recommendations made for the proposal with the second having been spoken to. The Lord Mayor asked the councillor’s position on the first recommendation which was for an “agreed approach to the consultation set out within the paper”.
Councillor Ratcliffe agreed he was happy to include the first recommendation in the proposal and Alderman Baxter “tentatively” agreed, provided the deadline would be extended.
