Equality Act 2010: Supreme Court Judgment Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Work and Pensions

Equality Act 2010: Supreme Court Judgment

Lord Rooker Excerpts
Thursday 27th November 2025

(1 day, 5 hours ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Asked by
Lord Rooker Portrait Lord Rooker
- View Speech - Hansard - -

To ask His Majesty’s Government which departments have been involved in considering the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice on implementing the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.

Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the Services, Public Functions and Associations: Code of Practice provides guidance on all protected characteristics, not solely sex and gender reassignment. As the sponsoring body, the Office for Equality and Opportunity is responsible for providing advice to Ministers on the code. Other government departments have been consulted as required on specific elements of the code.

Lord Rooker Portrait Lord Rooker (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

I thank the Minister for that Answer; it was a fairly simple Question. But does my noble friend understand that the delay and constant difficulty in giving straight answers to questions about the guidance gives the strong impression that the Government are being held to ransom by a tightly knit group of politically motivated Peers and MPs who do not accept the Supreme Court judgment, as stated by the rule of law? One is entitled to ask: where has the rule of law gone?

Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, I do not recognise that because it is not true. Any suggestion that the Government are delaying the code is both totally inaccurate and unhelpful. This is a long and complex document, and we are carefully considering it. Frankly, it would be catastrophic for single-sex services, which have always been supported by this Government and this party, to implement guidance that was not legally sound, which would then place them in legal jeopardy again. That is why it is vital that we get this right. We have always been clear that the proper process needs to be followed, which includes understanding the potential impact on businesses, public functions and services. Understanding impacts is a routine and regular aspect of decision-making; it is not a delaying tactic.