On Wednesday, judges at the UK's highest court unanimously ruled that the definition of a "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to "a biological woman and biological sex". Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chair of the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said the ruling was "enormously consequential" and ensured clarity. Politics latest: Supreme Court ruling should 'draw a line' under debate She vowed to pursue organisations that do not update their policies, saying they should be "taking care" to look at the "very readable judgment". On single-sex hospital wards, Baroness Falkner told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the NHS will "have to change" their 2019 policy, which says transgender patients are entitled to be accommodated on single-sex wards matching how they identify. She said the court ruling means there is now "no confusion" and the NHS "can start to implement the new legal reasoning and produce their exceptions forthwith". Women's sport and changing rooms The baroness also said trans women can no longer take part in women's sport, while single-sex places, such as changing rooms, "must be based on biological sex". However, she said there is no law against organisations providing a "third space", such as unisex toilets, and suggested trans rights organisations "should be using their powers of advocacy to ask for those third spaces". In 2021, Baroness Falkner came under criticism from trans and other LGBTIQ+ organisations after she said women had the right to question transgender identity without fear of abuse, stigmatisation or loss of employment. Some EHRC staff resigned in protest of the body's "descent into transphobia", while others defended her, saying she was depoliticising the organisation. Her four-year term was extended for a further 12 months in November by the Labour government. Public bodies must look at equality laws Health minister Karin Smyth said public bodies have been told to look at how equality laws are implemented following the ruling. She told Anna Jones on Sky News Breakfast: "Obviously, public bodies have been asked to look at their own guidance. "And we will do that very, very carefully." She said the court's ruling was "very clear" about women's rights being defined by sex, which she said "will give clarity to companies". But she warned against public bodies making statements "that may alarm people", telling them to take their time to look at their guidance. The ruling marked the culmination of a long battle between campaign group For Women Scotland and the Scottish government after the group brought a case arguing sex-based protections should only apply to people born female. Read more:Feminists 'feel braver about speaking out' Not a triumph of one group over another Judge Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be read as "a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another". He said the Equality Act 2010 "gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender". Ms Smyth said those who identify as transgender "will feel concerned" after the ruling but said the Gender Recognition Act still stands and gives people who identify differently to the sex they were born in "the dignity and privacy of presenting differently". She said NHS policy of having same sex wards remains, but did not mention the 2019 transgender policy, and said the NHS has been looking at how to support both transgender men and women. Scotland's First Minister John Swinney said the Scottish government "accepts" the judgment and said the ruling "gives clarity". Trina Budge, director of For Women Scotland, said it was a "victory for women's rights" and said the case was "never about trans rights" as transgender people are "fully protected in law". "It means there's absolute clarity in law regarding what a woman is. We know for sure now that we are referring to the biological sex class of women," she told Sky News. "And that when we see a women-only space, it means exactly that. Just women. No men. Not even if they have a gender recognition certificate." Transgender woman and Scottish Greens activist Ellie Gomersall said the ruling "represents yet another attack on the rights of trans people to live our lives in peace". Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman added: "This is a deeply concerning ruling for human rights and a huge blow to some of the most marginalised people in our society." LGBT charity Stonewall said there was "deep concern" around the consequences of the ruling.

Lillian Greenwood told Sky News Breakfast with Anna Jones that people face "eyewatering" costs if a pothole causes more damage to their car than a puncture, with the average repair job setting them back by £460, according to the RAC. Politics Live: UK in 'discussions' with France over migrant returns deal This, along with the continued freeze on fuel duty, will save drivers over £500 a year, the government has said, claiming its interventions are easing the cost-of-living crisis for drivers. It was put to Ms Greenwood that the savings only apply if you hit a pothole in the first place. Asked if she thinks it's a common occurrence, she said: "Unfortunately, it's all too common. And because we've had more than 10 years of the Conservatives under investing in our road network, that's left it absolutely cratered with potholes." She said potholes are "probably the biggest issue" when she doorsteps constituents, adding: "They're really angry about the state of their local roads. "Far too many people are hitting a pothole and finding they're having to fork out to get their car fixed." Earlier this year, an annual industry report estimated that 17% of the local road network in England and Wales are in poor condition. It predicted that the one-time catch-up cost to clear the backlog of maintenance issues would cost £16.81bn and take 12 years to complete. Chancellor Rachel Reeves's autumn budget contained a £1.6bn investment to maintain roads and fix potholes, which it said was an increase of £500m on the 2024-25 budget. Local authorities will get the first tranche of that money this month. It comes ahead of the local elections in May, when support for drivers could become a dividing line. Read More:Prisons across England and Wales now 98.9% full'Likely' British Steel will be nationalised, says business secretary It was put to Ms Greenwood that while trumpeting its motorist-friendly credentials, Labour has also introduced a £1.7bn car tax raid and backed more 20mph low tariff neighbourhoods. She said the government has left decisions on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods to local authorities and many people "want to see drivers going slower". The government's announcement on savings today came alongside a pledge to remove 1,000 miles of roadworks over the Easter weekend in a bid to cut journey times. The works will be reinstated after Easter Monday. However, bank holiday engineering works on the railway lines will not be halted, meaning there will be disruption for people who don't have a car. No trains are running from London Euston, affecting most of the Avanti West Coast line.

The Fair Access Limit (FAL) will be reduced from £5,000 to £3,000 as part of a package of changes to the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund (ASGSF), which helped nearly 20,000 children last year. Politics Live: Judges rule on definition of a woman - as campaigners celebrate The cuts were confirmed in an email to the sector over parliament's Easter recess rather than through a formal announcement. The email, seen by Sky News, says the ASGSF will continue from April 2025 with a budget of £50m, the same as last year, but there will be changes to how it is allocated. This includes cutting the limit of grants for therapy by 40% and scrapping a separate allowance of £2,500 for specialist assessments. Specialist assessments up to the level of £2,500 will be considered for funding, but only within the overall limit of £3,000. In addition, the government will no longer match fund more expensive therapy above the limits. The letter said: "We recognise that this is a significant change, but it is being made to ensure that the funding can continue to support as many families as possible. "The Adoption and Special Guardianship Fund will still enable those eligible to access a significant package of therapeutic support, tailored to meet their individual needs." The ASGSF helped 16,333 children in the year 2023/24, up from 14,862 the previous financial year. 'Deep concerns' Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson criticised the government for "slipping out" the changes during recess, despite her raising an urgent question in the Commons on 1 April over whether the funding would continue. At the time, children and families minister Janet Daby responded to confirm £50m had been allocated overall and apologised for the delay in saying so, but didn't mention the cuts. The future of the ASGSF had been in doubt up until then, as it was due to run out in March 2025. In a letter to Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Ms Wilson said it is "unacceptable the government took so long to confirm the fund and even more unacceptable that MPs were provided with incomplete information". She called on ministers to reverse the "deeply concerning" cuts, saying she and her parliamentary colleagues have been contacted by constituents "sharing the deeply traumatic stories children in their care have experienced". She said the changes will have a "huge impact on the quality of life" for vulnerable children and even in light of the fiscal challenges "cannot be justified". 'Most adopted children have suffered abuse or neglect' Charities have also hit out at the government with Adoption UK saying the decision is a consequence of "belt tightening across government". The organisation says around 3,000 children in England are placed in adoptive families each year, and most have suffered abuse, neglect, or violence and spend an average of 15 months in care before adoption - so need therapy for most of their life. CEO Emily Frith said: "These decisions will have a direct impact on children and young people who have had a very tough start in life and deserve the same chance to thrive as everyone else. "It's very short-sighted at a time when there are more adoptive families in crisis than ever before, and distressing news for everyone who has already faced an agonising wait to find out whether the fund will continue to exist at all." Kinship, which supports people who step in to raise a friend or family member's child, warned 13% of carers are concerned about their ability to carry on because of behavioural difficulties stemming from trauma and loss, so the cuts risk family breakdowns and "children entering an already overstretched care system". Both charities called on the government to rethink the changes at the June Spending Review, when Chancellor Rachel Reeves will set out her plans for spending and key public sector reforms for future years. Ms Reeves is under pressure after announcing a raft of cuts in her spring statement, after poor economic growth and global instability wiped out her fiscal headroom. The chancellor is determined to keep the headroom as part of her self-imposed fiscal rules, which require day-to-day spending to be met through tax receipts rather than borrowing. But there is concern the headroom is even more fragile amid Donald Trump's global trade tariffs, meaning further cuts or tax rises could be on the cards. The Department for Education has been contacted for comment.

Rosie Duffield, now the independent MP for Canterbury, said the judgment helped resolve the "lack of clarity" that has existed in the politics around the issue "for years". She was speaking to Ali Fortescue on the Politics Hub on the same day the UK's highest court delivered its verdict on one of the most contentious debates in politics. Politics latest: MPs respond to Supreme Court ruling on gender The judges were asked to rule on how "sex" is defined in the 2010 Equality Act - whether that means biological sex or "certificated" sex, as legally defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act. Their unanimous decision was that the definition of a "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to "a biological woman and biological sex". Asked what she made about comments by fellow independent MP John McDonnell - who said the court "failed to hear the voice of a single trans person" and that the decision "lacked humanity and fairness" as a result, she said: "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." However, Maggie Chapman, a Scottish Green MSP, disagreed with Ms Duffield and said she was "concerned" about the impact the ruling would have on trans people "and for the services and facilities they have been using and have had access to for decades now". "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 said. "We know that over the last few years... their [trans people's] lives have become increasingly difficult, they have been blocked from accessing services they need." Delivering the ruling at the London court on Wednesday, Lord Hodge said: "But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not. "The Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender. "This is the application of the principle of discrimination by association. Those statutory protections are available to transgender people, whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate." Read more:Supreme Court decision has immediate real-world consequencesPrisons across England and Wales now 98.9% full Asked whether she believed the judgment could "draw a line" under the culture war, Ms Chapman told Fortescue: "Today's judgment only stokes that culture war further." And she said that while Lord Hodge was correct to say there were protections in law for trans people in the 2020 Equality Act, the judgment "doesn't prevent things happening". "It may offer protections once bad things have happened, once harassment, once discrimination, once bigotry, once assaults have happened," she said. She also warned some groups "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," she said. "I think today's ruling just emboldens those views."

From Shanghai to Scunthorpe - what's China's influence on UK industry? British Steel's Scunthorpe steelworks are now effectively under government control after the business secretary said Chinese owner Jingye had decided to stop buying enough raw materials to keep the blast furnaces going. Jonathan Reynolds said the government took the action as steel "is vital for our national security". But with Chinese companies owning hundreds of billions of pounds worth of infrastructure assets throughout the UK, do they have too much influence on the UK's critical industries? On the Sky News Daily, Niall Paterson speaks to business correspondent Paul Kelso about nationalising British Steel, Chinese investment in the UK economy and whether the government can ultimately keep the lights in the furnaces on. The Sky News Daily has approached Jingye for comment.