Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice

Debate between Lord Scriven and Baroness Stedman-Scott

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.