Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his tone and approach—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

We will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

We will hear from Labour, then the Cross Benches.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what my noble friend says, but the ruling made clear that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex. That has implications for gender recognition certificates, which no longer change one’s sex for the purposes of the Act. We will look at gender recognition reform, but we are clear that we will always support single-sex spaces based on biological sex. Everyone throughout society deserves dignity, respect and protection when using public services and healthcare. That will be our position. Our priority is that services ensure that they are complying with the law. This ruling has now provided clarity to service providers, and we also have the guidance.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, under which this code was written. The Minister has referred several times to the fact that the Government interacted with the EHRC to take feedback, consultations and, as the Minister in the other place repeatedly mentioned, engagement. Given the meaning of Section 14(7) of the Act, which protects the EHRC’s independence, and given that the only role for the Government that it identifies is to write to the EHRC if they do not agree with it and to make that letter public, will he now agree to provide, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, asked, all the changes that they have made to that in violation of Section 14(7)? Or is he going to wait until there is another judicial review against the Government to get transparency on this matter? That is all we ask: transparency.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not accept the premise of the noble Baroness’s question. I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, that the EHRC itself last month outlined that it had made a small number of changes based on feedback, consultation responses and further legal analysis on its part. We have been clear that organisations must follow the law. Our focus has always been on making sure that organisations have the guidance they need and that it is clear and practical. For example, one change made clear that associations can define their membership on the basis of more than one protected characteristic—for instance, a walking club for Muslim women or an LGBT+ support group—and continue to operate lawfully. We have not put pressure; the EHRC has explicitly said that the draft code was amended to make the law clearer for service providers and others. The EHRC has been clear that it made the decision to amend the draft code following feedback, consultation responses and legal advice. That is the position.