Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Viscount says. The Supreme Court judgment is clear about biological sex; we have to and we will ensure compliance. The independent Equality and Human Rights Commission has come up with guidance. That guidance has gone through a lot of process and consultation, and people have been listened to in respect of that. But we have to work our way through in a proportionate way. As I say, trans people are not just trans women but also trans men, and how we accommodate all these things is really important. We must respect their rights under the Equality Act but we must also fully comply with the Supreme Court judgment.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I went out with two female friends, one of whom was thrown out of a women’s toilet because she was wrongly identified as a man. As the guidance allows trans men to be excluded from single-sex spaces on the basis of appearance, how does the clear and practical guidance protect masculine-looking women from being excluded from women-only spaces?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I come back to my original response. The idea that somebody is making a judgment because of the way someone is dressed or looks is inappropriate. I think it is pretty obvious if a man goes into a women’s toilet by error or sometimes due to absolute need—which I have done, once, although I was told quite quickly, “This is not the place for you”. But common sense applies here. I have spent my life with the LGBT community and have spent my life visiting and participating in parties in clubs and bars where there is a whole range of people, whether feminine men or masculine women. We should not be making a judgment on that. It is British common sense which will apply in the application of this code. The idea that someone is told that they cannot use a toilet because they look a particular way is not very British.