Equality Act 2010: Supreme Court Judgment

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not believe that it will, but understanding costs is of course a routine and regular aspect of decision-making, as I suggested. This is a long and legally complex document that will have an impact on service providers up and down the country. Rightfully, we are carefully considering it and have asked the EHRC not to carry out a full regulatory impact assessment but, rather, to help by providing information on costs to ensure that a full impact assessment is not required, so that Ministers can take a fully informed decision.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I declare for the final time an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I am sure that the House will be delighted to hear that this is my final intervention on this matter, but I want to explain for the information of the House the important point made by both the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the Minister. It is simply that the code was provided to government on 8 April, before the Supreme Court ruling. Since the Supreme Court ruling, only 10% of the code has changed. It is coming up to eight months since 90% of the code was reviewed by the Government, and they responded with suggestions to those different protected characteristics and aspects. It is only that 10% which has been with the Government since 4 September.

Finally, the Minister makes an important point about the costs of the regulatory impact. The bottom line is that since this is the law of the land, the impact of costs will be far higher if we litigate through the courts case by case, public body by public body, and duty bearer by duty bearer.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I wholly agree with the noble Baroness on her last point, which is precisely why it is important that we consider the code appropriately, as laid out in law in the Equality Act 2006. She is right that, as I outlined, the code covers more than the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment. But it was on 4 September that the updated code, post the For Women Scotland case, was submitted to the Government. For the reasons I have outlined, I do not think it unreasonable for the Government to take the time to consider this appropriately and to consider, as they are expected to do by the burdens process put in place by the previous Government, the potential impact of that on providers, and for us to work to do so in a way that will safeguard providers in protecting all the protected characteristics that the code—