Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice

Lord Leong Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions and contributions.

I start by picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and addressing the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, about the general principle. We forget what the Supreme Court itself said in its judgment, which is, of course, repeated in the Statement. It is worth repeating. The court

“warned against reading this judgment ‘as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another’. That is why this Government will always treat these issues sensitively and will refuse to use any group as a political football. The Government have been clear that we will protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex where they are needed, such as women’s refuges. We have also been clear that everyone, including trans people, should have the right to access the services they need in a way that is respectful, protects dignity and privacy, and ensures adequate provision”.

That is where everybody in this House should be focused.

As the noble Baroness knows, having participated in a number of Oral Questions about the timing of the code, we have repeatedly said that it is important the code gets this right or it will lead to further legal challenges. I have seen the letter from the shadow Minister for Equalities on the issues of delay and changes. It is for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to answer that specific set of questions. Our focus, as I have repeatedly said, has been to make sure that organisations have the guidance they need and that it is clear and practical. We have made sure of this by doing a thorough job of ensuring that the duty bearers have the guidance they needed to comply with the Equality Act. The EHRC has been clear that it made a decision to amend the draft code following feedback, consultation, responses and legal advice. That is where we are.

One of the key elements is to ensure proportionality, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has raised a valuable point, particularly about costs. The commission has been clear that service providers might comply with the law in different ways due to different factors, such as physical building constraints. There is no blanket requirement for a particular approach and duty bearers should take a proportionate approach. For example, a small café might have only one individual lockable toilet for all customers, and there are lots of examples like that.

The estimated costs that the EHRC has provided have been spread across different parts of the economy, not just one sector of business, over a 10-year period. Many of those costs will be one-off, rather than ongoing. This is about complying with the law and the draft code provides guidance to support organisations to do so.

On an issue that has been raised before, I have been clear, as has my noble friend Lady Smith, that the Supreme Court judgment was clear and must be complied with. All government departments must comply with it; we have been clear about that. The Cabinet Office has updated Civil Service model policy and departments will work to implement the policy changes as soon as possible. Compliance with the law is clear. We will continue to keep our guidance updated, to ensure that it takes account of the latest case law and any future updates by the EHRC to the code of practice on employment. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, is right that there are other changes in the code that have brought it up to date, particularly around breastfeeding mothers and people with disabilities. We should see it in that context, and no doubt there will be periods when we need to do that.

The noble Baroness raised the issue of the NHS. The NHS is for everyone. The Secretary of State for Health is clear that NHS services should protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex, while at the same time protecting the rights, dignity and safety of trans people. The Government have taken action by publishing the draft code, and NHS England will be publishing guidance to bring it into effect in due course.

I have said before that in the past, the debate on this issue has been incredibly toxic. I think that everyone in this House wants to ensure that we can move forward respectfully and compassionately and understand the needs of all our communities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, knows that I have been part of a situation where a Government decided that a category of people in our community was not safe to work with children. That was Section 28. We should not forget that and the consequences of that. I am absolutely determined that we should protect everyone’s interests, including those of women, women’s safe spaces and, of course, single-sex spaces, as committed by the Supreme Court, but we must not forget that trans people deserve respect too, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind all noble Lords that we are now moving on to up to 20 minutes of questions—and I mean questions—from Back-Bench Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

We will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt.

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

We have loads of time; it is all going to be okay.

I thank the Minister for his approach and response to these questions. It has been 12 months of trying to clarify the code and clarify the interpretation from the Supreme Court. I am seeing a significant degree of confusion about how the law will be implemented and how the code is to be interpreted. There is almost an accepted assumption that these things will be tested through litigation and case law. A number of small organisations, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to, are worried about being litigated against, and trans people are worried about being shouted at. It is our job to create good law. Does the noble Lord think we are now in a position where we can say that we have created good law and can stand by it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

We will hear from Labour, then the Cross Benches.

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be finished in a moment. I too thank the Minister for the tone that he has struck today.

We are touching on an important issue. The code leaves us in a position where someone who has a gender recognition certificate has no additional protection under the Equality Act. The Gender Recognition Act was designed specifically to remedy trans people finding themselves in an intermediate legal zone. Given that, do the Government envisage that we may need to honour the commitment that Parliament made to trans people in 2004 when it passed the Gender Recognition Act?