Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

The Equality Act is one of the most significant achievements in modern British history which was enacted by the previous Labour Government. It is the quiet guardian in millions of people’s daily lives. This Government will uphold and protect it, not weaken it. We are grateful to the EHRC for its work on the draft code to ensure that duty bearers and service users have up-to-date guidance on the Equality Act. We will always uphold our British values of treating everyone with dignity and respect. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Statement on the draft Equality Act 2010 code of practice. The publication of the draft code is welcome, and I was pleased to see greater protections for breast-feeding women, and greater clarity for people with disabilities. Those are important improvements.

The Conservative Party has always been clear on this issue: vulnerable women and girls must be protected. We welcome the judgment of the Supreme Court, and we will always stand up for single-sex spaces to be protected in line with the law. That is the right approach; no matter what pressure they may be under from their friends in the unions and the Liberal Democrats, the Government must do the right thing and protect women and girls. However, public bodies, employers, schools, service providers and women across the country have been waiting many months for clarity following the Supreme Court’s judgment, and I cannot understand why they have had to wait so long.

Before I speak to the detail of the code, can the Minister please explain why the Government took so long to bring it forward? We understand that the EHRC first submitted its draft to Ministers last September and, during that period, organisations responsible for implementing the law were left without the clarity they needed, despite the Supreme Court having already provided legal certainty on the meaning of “sex” within the Equality Act. In particular, we know that many NHS settings have failed to comply with the Supreme Court judgment while waiting for the updated code of practice. Does the Minister recognise that this unacceptable delay has caused material harm to women, who should have had their own spaces protected much sooner? It is not just the NHS. Many other organisations have spent the past year attempting to navigate their responsibilities without the updated code of practice. Does the Minister accept that this delay has contributed to confusion for service providers and uncertainty for those seeking to access services?

Ministers have said that the delay was a result of changes to the code of practice being required. As noble Lords will know, Section 14(7) of the Equality Act 2006 allows for the Secretary of State to approve the EHRC draft code of practice or to reject it with written reasons. It does not provide for the Secretary of State to withhold approval pending changes. Can the Minister therefore explain what happened in this case? What legal basis exists for the Secretary of State to put approval of the code of practice on hold while the EHRC makes changes to the code of practice? Does the Minister agree that what happened in this case runs contrary to the process conceived by Parliament when the Act was put into law?

However, whatever the legal basis of that decision, transparency would certainly help to build trust in the way Ministers have approached this issue. Can the Minister set out what changes, if any, the Government requested to the EHRC’s original draft before laying it before Parliament? Will the Government publish details of any substantive amendments that were made and the reason for them? Can the Minister say whether any changes to the original draft demanded by the Secretary of State were not reflected in the final draft laid before the House before recess?

The Supreme Court has provided legal clarity, and organisations now require operational clarity. Can the Minister assure the House that government departments, bodies and public authorities will move swiftly to review and update their own guidance, policies and procedures so that they are fully consistent with both the judgment and the code? What process will Ministers follow to ensure compliance, and will the Minister commit to updating the House on the progress that public bodies, in particular the NHS, are making towards full compliance with the code of practice? While Parliament has a duty to uphold the rights of women and girls and the lawful provision of single-sex spaces, it is equally important that everybody is treated with dignity and respect. Can the Minister outline what practical support will be provided to schools, hospitals, local authorities, charities and businesses to assist them in implementing the code consistently and lawfully?

Finally, the draft code of practice contains an inaccuracy. It states:

“Information about sex is likely to constitute special category data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and UK General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR)”.


Special category personal data is described under Article 9 of the UK GDPR; the category of sex is not included as such data. Will the Minister look into this and ensure that a correction is made to the code of practice? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this Statement on a profoundly important yet sensitive matter. When we debate the updated code of practice, we must remember that at the heart of this issue are fellow citizens. If we listen closely, we find that people affected by the code are driven by exactly the same fundamental human needs: respect, dignity and the desire to live with peace of mind. We hear the deeply held convictions of some women who look to single-sex spaces for privacy, companionship and dignity. For them, preserving the integrity of these spaces is not an abstract legal concept but a practical requirement for their dignity. We also hear the equally profound anxieties of some transgender individuals who fear that the new guidance will effectively lock them out of public life, strip away their dignity and subject them to humiliation or hostility when simply trying to access basic services. Both views are valid, and we must not ignore either.

As a House and as parliamentarians, our duty is to look objectively at the governance, economics and practical workability of this draft code in the light of the laws of the land. Following the laying of the draft code, the final stage impact assessment reveals a striking economic reality: the central estimated annualised costs sit at £81.7 million, with an overwhelming 82% of this financial burden falling squarely on the private sector. Further, 60% of the entire 10-year cost profile is front- loaded in the first 24 months.

Yet the assessment admits an extraordinary level of uncertainty and contains no independent verification from the Regulatory Policy Committee. Crucially, the document explicitly acknowledges that, due to severe data limitations, the Government have been entirely unable to assess the specific impact on small businesses and micro-businesses. The Government are, in effect, flying blind, passing a statutory framework that could heavily penalise local businesses without any hard evidence or baseline data on how smaller enterprises are supposed to absorb these costs. We must look also at how this code will work on a Wednesday afternoon for, say, a local charity or small independent business. Right now, it will create significant contradictions that would leave them exposed to litigation. To that end, I wish to press the Minister on four critical issues regarding implementation.

First, what practical or financial support will be provided to small businesses that simply lack the physical space or capital to build the self-contained gender-neutral facilities recommended in the impact assessment?

Secondly, what operational guidance do the Government intend to issue to public-facing service providers regarding the precise mechanism by which front-line staff can lawfully and proportionately verify an individual’s sex recorded at birth without breaching Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, GDPR rules on special category data or Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004?

Thirdly, what assessment have the Government made of the potential legal conflict for service providers between the provision in the draft code that a single- sex service will lose its statutory status if it includes an individual based on their gender reassignment characteristic and the ongoing statutory requirement under the Equality Act 2010 to demonstrate that the exclusion of that individual constitutes a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?

Fourthly, the code will pass via the negative procedure unless Parliament acts within 40 days. Given the concerns about the uncertainty and costs it will create, will the Government consider supporting a Joint Committee of both Houses to give these questions raised by the ruling and subsequent code the parliamentary scrutiny they have not yet fully received?

If we want a society that is fair, we cannot pass down ambiguous guidance that forces business owners, charities and low-wage front-line staff to act as constitutional lawyers, risking complicated litigation. They need clarity and a code of practice that is operationally and economically viable. Above all, we need an approach that treats all individuals, and those trying to run services for them, with the certainty and dignity they deserve. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

For Women Scotland Case

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have huge respect for the noble Baroness, but I do not accept for one moment that there has been a deliberate delay in implementing this code. I have been very clear. These are complex issues and they need proper consideration. The purdah arrangements are clear. We have received advice from the Cabinet Secretary. I have been very clear that we cannot comment on the code. The Government have made a commitment that the code will be laid as soon as possible after the election. That means in May—not in spring, not in six months, in May. We are being very clear. Cat Little, the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, wrote to the Women and Equalities Select Committee’s chair to explain the background to the Minister’s Statement on 14 April. That letter is in the Library of the House of Commons. It clarifies restrictions during pre-election periods as set out in the guidance to civil servants. It is absolutely clear. I can reassure the noble Baroness that we are following proper process in relation to this code.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, on 16 April, the one-year anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court judgment confirming that sex in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, the Conservative Party announced that Conservative-run councils will publish clear, legally compliant policies on single-sex spaces and services. I also confirm that Conservative-run councils will publish their own single-sex policies and ensure that they are operational. Conservative-run councils will also act to ensure that funding and contracts will be withdrawn from third-party providers that do not comply with the law. Will the Government act now to ensure that Labour-run councils—indeed, all councils—understand that they must comply with the law?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not understand why I need to repeat myself so often. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear. The Supreme Court judgment must be complied with. It is the law. Whether or not the Conservative Party needs to explain to the electorate, “We will comply with the law”, there is no doubt about it: we will ensure that the law is complied with. However, there are implications for policies that need to be properly examined, which is why we have the code and why it needs to be considered as a whole. It is disingenuous to constantly say, “Conservative councils will comply with the law” when every council has an obligation to comply with it.

Equality Act 2010: Section 106

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not want to see that in Hansard, by the way. We want to ensure that candidates reflect the communities they seek to represent —that is the purpose—and transparency is a key tool to ensure that. When we consult, we will look at all the measures contained in the Equality Act and Section 106. We have not yet decided what characteristics would be included, but the noble Lord makes an incredibly important point about the need to take action.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, the Conservative Party is proud to have had four women leaders, and I am proud to be part of a House that has had so many successful women in it. I think about the late PD James, the late Baroness Audrey Emerton, my dear friend Baroness Helen Newlove and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the Leader of the House now. We believe that when people with a range of experiences come together, better decisions are made. Can the Minister say what practical steps the Government are taking to encourage more women, and young women in particular, to take an active role in politics?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We can take a number of measures and, focusing on how young people generally can engage in our political process, that involves education. We had an excellent Select Committee report on precisely that issue. The noble Baroness makes a very good point about the range of people we should have in our representative democracy. That includes people who do not necessarily have the high level of education of some but who have huge life experience, which can contribute to our deliberations. We are taking action with education and support, but political parties themselves have a responsibility, which is what Section 106 is about. Each of us can do more to ensure that representation.

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

If the noble Baronesses can be quick, we can get the Front Bench in and then the Liberal Democrats.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

There are hundreds of documented NHS trusts which still have unlawful policies with regard to the provision of single-sex hospital accommodation. The NHS policy annex B continues to authorise the placement of biological men on women’s hospital wards. Will the Government act now and instruct these organisations to follow the law? If they continue not to, can they explain when they will act?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat what I said to the noble Lord. There are many policies in existence that will obviously need to undergo review as a consequence of the Supreme Court judgment. That review will have implications, for not just sex but all the other protected characteristics. Many of these policies cover a whole range of issues. The fundamental point, which I made to the noble Lord, is that the Government and all government departments will comply with the law. That is my answer to the noble Baroness.

Single-Sex Spaces: EHRC Guidance

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am a Minister with many responsibilities, and I am not sure that I am in the Cabinet Office at the moment. One thing I am absolutely sure about is that I am Deputy Leader of this House, and I would not wish to mislead it. I was trying to convey that the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court judgment. It may not be what the noble Lord hinted at, but the Government are being very clear that there should be compliance with the Supreme Court judgment. That is why we want the code of practice, which the noble Baroness was obviously involved in, to be fully considered, properly accounted for and robust for the future. That is what we are determined to do, and it will result in all public bodies and companies being fully compliant with the Supreme Court judgment.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, if the Government have concerns about the lawfulness of the EHRC code, given their five-month review of 30 pages, have they received any advice from the Attorney-General regarding his assessment of it? When was the Attorney-General consulted?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness knows that I am not going to go into legal advice from the Attorney-General. This is not about whether the guidance or the draft code is compliant legally; it is to ensure that the guidance can be adopted and applied by everyone without future legal challenge. That is what I am saying very clearly. It is robust guidance. After all, it has never been the position to say that the code is not legal. The code may well be, but we want to ensure that it can be applied properly and adopted by all public bodies and companies.

Equality Act 2010: Meaning of “Sex”

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I understand that many trans people may have read the human rights commissioner’s correspondence. I reread it this morning. It will undoubtedly raise concern among trans people. We have been clear that the laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place. Trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment, a protected characteristic within the Equality Act.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Government received the full revised code of practice on 4 April. Only three chapters of it were altered in the updated version following the Supreme Court ruling. Can the Minister explain why there has been such a delay to review only three chapters and how much longer it is expected to take?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not accept the noble Baroness’s assertion. The department received the final draft code on 4 September. It is 300 pages long. That code needs detailed consideration because, as my noble friend pointed out, we want to avoid uncertainty. We want to ensure, as the Equality and Human Rights Commission is absolutely concerned to ensure, that there is absolute clarity on the Supreme Court decision. That is why we will take the necessary time to ensure that, when it is presented for full consideration by Parliament, it is as accurate and legally proofed as possible. There has been no delay.