Single-sex Spaces: Equality and Human Rights Commission Guidance

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

14:46

Asked by

[Lord Rooker]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the merits of implementing the proposed Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on single sex spaces by means of primary legislation.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer my noble friend to the Written Ministerial Statement issued today by the Minister for Women and Equalities. Under Sections 14(7) and 14(8) of the Equality Act 2006, if the draft code is approved by the Secretary of State, it is laid before Parliament. If neither House disapproves the draft within a 40-day period, the Secretary of State would then bring the code into force by a commencement order.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, at the third time of asking—I am grateful to my noble friend for his forbearance—I have just two brief questions. Why have Ministers never met any of the leaders of For Women Scotland, whose case ended up in the Supreme Court? One of those, Marion Calder, is sitting in the Gallery today waiting for an answer of substance, which clearly will not come following the Secretary of State’s Statement. That Statement clearly says that the commission’s advice was received by the Government on 13 April—yesterday. That must mean it was agreed forthwith. We have had all these months of delay and inquiry, but, quite clearly, we have now got to the election purdah. That is what it was all about—to delay the decision until after 7 May—was it not? It is an absolutely disgraceful way to operate.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I understand that the Secretary of State, Bridget Phillipson, has responded positively to the request for a meeting, and I hope that will take place shortly. I have said repeatedly in this House—as a consequence of the repeated questions—that we must get this right. It is too important to not get right. The commission has worked very hard to ensure that all those considerations are taken into account. We now have received that revised code, and it will be placed before Parliament. As my noble friend quite rightly said, we are currently in a pre-election period. This means restrictions, and I am sorry; these restrictions are well established. Given the relevance of the code to the devolved Administrations, we are unable to make any announcements ahead of the elections. Those elections are only a matter of weeks away; as soon as they are out of the way, we will bring forward the code to Parliament.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, on 2 February and again on 26 February, the Minister was asked whether government departments are compliant with the Supreme Court ruling on sex. Given that the EHRC code does not cover employment and that the Supreme Court ruling will have existed for a year on Thursday, will the Government take another number of years to comply with the law, or will employees have to relitigate their rights all the way to the Supreme Court again, as the brave women in For Women Scotland did over six years? Will he commit to telling the House when the Government themselves will be compliant with the Supreme Court ruling?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let me repeat what I have said to the noble Baroness on numerous occasions. The Supreme Court decision is absolutely clear, and we will ensure full compliance with it, but that does not mean that existing policies and procedures in place can be simply wiped away. They cover a range of issues, particularly in employment, and it is important that the Civil Service properly reviews those policies. Let me reassure the noble Baroness—I have responded to Written Questions, and I have responded to her before—that we are fully insistent that everyone should comply with the law. That is, and will continue to be, the Government’s position.

[Baroness Davies of Devonport (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to the fact that it has been a year since the Supreme Court ruling. We have recently had the Olympics say that protecting the female category is based on science. Sport England’s own report said that we cannot have the inclusion of men and fairness in women’s sport. It is not okay to protect 1% and say that 99% of women and girls in this country are not worthy of fair sport. Will the Minister please tell me why Sport England is still giving money to sports that are breaking the law?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Everybody should comply with the law; that is the Government’s position. Organisations that have any doubt about this should properly consult lawyers. We are absolutely consistent: the Supreme Court judgment is clear and should be applied. I am not deviating from that position.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on taking their time to get this right. I have to say, without any excuse, that they have not been helped by the mess they were given when the Equality and Human Rights Commission proceeded in haste following the Supreme Court judgment. There are obvious legal tensions, not least that which now exists between the judgment and the provisions of the Gender Recognition Act. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister to ensure that the Government will now move forward at pace and, in so doing, maintain their commitment to protect all the vulnerable affected by these issues following the judgment, particularly trans people, including trans women, who have been dehumanised, discriminated against and misrepresented throughout this entire procedure.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend will understand that I cannot comment on the contents of the draft code, particularly during this current election period, but I understand the sentiment behind the question. I want to reassure noble Lords that this Government are absolutely committed to balancing all rights and ensuring provision for all. That is what this Government stand for and we will ensure that it happens.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have rightly emphasised that protections for trans people remain in the Equality Act. Can the Minister expand on how the updated code will support service providers in balancing these protections alongside those relating to single-sex spaces?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am afraid I have to repeat the point I made: I cannot comment on the draft code during this period of purdah. I think everyone in this House knows the Government’s position. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the rights of everyone under the Equality Act are, and continue to be, protected. The Supreme Court judgment made that clear too; we should not forget that. We should absolutely remain considerate of the rights of trans people. I am afraid that this debate has been fairly toxic. We need to show a bit of compassion and understanding. I am confident that we can move forward once we have the code before Parliament.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, despite the love of the Civil Service words of “moving at pace”, many of us have had experience of government acting a little more slowly than we would like. To take a whole year to publish a code of practice is pushing that to the limit. Just because decisions are difficult, it does not mean they should not be taken. Ministers in both Houses have been dodging our questions for long enough. When—I am asking for a specific date, not another road down which to kick this can—will the Government actually publish the EHRC’s code of practice?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I understand why the noble Baroness is asking that question, but it has been very important that we listen and respond. The EHRC has done the same. We now have the draft code, as the Written Ministerial Statement says. The Civil Service has been very clear—the noble Baroness knows this better than anyone—that there is a period of purdah, especially as the elections involve bodies directly involved in the application of this code. As soon as the elections are out of the way, we will bring forward the draft code under the Equality Act 2006. She does not have to wait—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Hang on, I am still standing. I had not quite finished, but I might as well give way to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I am privileged, and almost dumbstruck. I join others in paying tribute to the redoubtable team at the NGO For Women Scotland, who secured this Supreme Court judgment. A Government who proclaim their commitment to the rule of law ad nauseam have spent a year trying to evade it and now continue the gaslighting. The excuse of purdah is rather transparent. Why are the Government so contemptuous of voters, a majority of whom value single-sex facilities and services for women but are not permitted to see this code before 7 May?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I strongly dispute what the noble Baroness says—I do not suppose we will ever come to an agreement on it—but this is a very important issue. The Supreme Court judgment was absolutely clear; it brought clarity. If anyone is in any doubt about its implementation, they should seek legal advice. The impacts of the code of practice are very broad. I am not going to comment on the code. By the way, purdah is not something invented by the Government. Purdah is a well-established process, and we are not going to deviate from it. We are talking about elections that are only a matter of weeks away. This Parliament will have the opportunity, in accordance with the Equality Act, to review it properly.