Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the draft Equality Act 2010 code of practice for services, public functions and associations.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is the independent equality regulator, and it ensures compliance with the Equality Act 2010. Its code of practice covers all nine protected characteristics and the steps service providers should take to comply with the law. On receipt of the draft code from the EHRC in September, we consulted the devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland, per the process set out in the Equality Act 2006. The EHRC sent the Government an updated draft code last month, following engagement and further legal analysis, ensuring it is robust and accessible with clear explanations. The Minister for Women and Equalities updated Parliament in April, with the Government committed to laying the code in May following restrictions during the pre-election period. My right hon. Friend honoured that commitment on 21 May.

The EHRC has worked hard to produce a code that works for everyone. Following the laying of the draft code, there is now a 40-day period, not including the recess, that allows for parliamentary scrutiny, as set out in the Equality Act 2006. If neither House disapproves the draft in this period, the Minister can then revoke the 2011 code by regulations and then bring the new code into force by a commencement order.

Today, I want to update the House on the contents of the code, in particular what has changed between this draft code and the 2011 version. The updates are primarily where there have been legislative changes, developments in case law, a change or clarification of terminology, or new guidance issued since the original code was published in 2011. The most substantial changes relate to the ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers handed down on 16 April 2025. The judgment set out that sex means biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, and that trans people are still protected by the Act. In its judgment, the Supreme Court also warned against reading the 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. Changes primarily relate to the provision of sex-based services, when it is lawful to limit access to services and associations based on sex and gender reassignment, implications for competitive sport, and asking about someone’s sex.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement.

It is understood that the Secretary of State first received the draft code of practice in September last year, nine months ago—nine months in which the law has been clear, the Supreme Court had ruled, and women, girls, public bodies and businesses across the country have been waiting for the Government to act. What did the Government do when they received it? Instead of action, we saw delay after delay from a Government reluctant to face their own Back Benchers and protect vulnerable women and girls.

First, the Secretary of State claimed that she needed impact assessments; then she said that consultation with devolved Governments was required, despite this being a reserved matter; after that it was purdah; and finally, having exhausted every excuse, she chose to lay the code of practice before the House on the very last day before the Whitsun parliamentary recess, seemingly actively minimising scrutiny. That is not acceptable. It is also telling that the Secretary of State has sadly not even come to the House herself to account for these decisions—it seems the lure of Makerfield is too great.

The Secretary of State previously told the House that she requested only minor changes to the EHRC’s draft. If that is the case, I ask the Minister, in the Secretary of State’s absence, why it took eight months to request them. The statement talks about engagement—in the interests of transparency, who was that with? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and I have written to the chair of the EHRC asking for clarity on what changes were made. Under the Equality Act 2006, the Secretary of State must provide written reasons for rejecting the original draft. As changes plainly have been made, will the Minister commit to publishing the detail on what has changed and why?

I thank the hon. Lady for her response and questions. Let me say up front that we take this issue incredibly seriously. Services and associations need to operate in compliance with the law, and we want to support them. The issue is not a political football for us; nor should it be for any Member of this House. We are focused on the practical—treating everyone with compassion, dignity and respect—and we should never fan the flames or seek to grab headlines. We will support services to operate and provide single-sex spaces where needed and ensure that trans people have access to all the services to support their needs, too.

The hon. Lady accused the Government of delay but, as a shadow Equalities Minister, she will know that there is a process that has to be followed. In line with that process, as outlined in the Equality Act 2006, we consulted the devolved Administrations; we worked across Government on the myriad services that we provide, or support others to provide; and we conducted an analysis of the code and its impact. The EHRC made some changes following its engagement and consultation. We were told by the Cabinet Office’s permanent secretary that we could not lay the code during the pre-election period. We have now laid the draft.

The hon. Lady said that in laying the draft in May, before the parliamentary recess, as my right hon. Friend committed to do, we were somehow seeking to delay scrutiny. It may help to clarify that upon laying the draft there is a 40-day period that allows for parliamentary scrutiny, and that excludes the recess. There is sufficient time for adequate scrutiny, and I am sure that the House will give the matter its attention.

I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

I really wish that there was a better beginning to Pride Month than what we are discussing. Although the code is marginally different from its draft, it is still a trans-exclusionary one at its core, and unfortunately not inclusive. Moves like this from the EHRC and the Government have seen the UK slip from third in 2019 to 22nd in the European rankings for LGBT+ people to live and feel safe. Does the Minister share my concern that the new code of practice will only further the UK’s now hostile environment for trans people and not calm it? How will she act to stop the erosion of LGBT+ rights in this country?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will know that making sure that we can support women and their rights, alongside treating trans people with dignity, must be the priority for all of us. That is what we are aiming to achieve. That is why it is important that we have the draft code now available for scrutiny. We will continue to ensure that we provide single-sex spaces where needed, and also ensure that trans people have access to services to support their needs, in an environment of dignity and respect for all.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. After the Supreme Court’s ruling last year, the Government’s job was to give people, businesses and organisations clear, workable guidance. The code is instead unworkable, exclusionary and expensive for businesses. As the Minister knows, the Government must ensure that they meet the legal obligations placed on them by the public sector equality duty. That requires the Minister to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct, to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not, and to foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not.

Yet the Government’s own equality impact assessment identifies disproportionate harm to those with protected characteristics, and a failure to set out how that harm will be addressed. Can the Minister really say, hand on heart, that she believes the guidance does that? The impact assessment notes how the guidance will likely impact women who are not trans, yet do not meet cultural and social expectations around what a woman should look like. There have already been stories of women with mastectomies being challenged when accessing women-only spaces because they do not look like women. Has the Minister truly considered that?

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and question. I again highlight how the draft code does provide further clarity on how service providers can follow the Supreme Court ruling in practice, and we can ensure that we both protect single-sex spaces and have services and support for trans people. It is important to recognise that although it cannot cover every scenario, the EHRC has provided key explanations and worked examples, also based on wide consultation, that every organisation can take and apply in its own context with common sense. If a service provider is not sure, it can and should take legal advice.

I also want to mention the burden on business. The EHRC expects that for most aspects of the draft code, businesses will already be compliant, and for some businesses there will be no cost at all. For example, a small café might have one individual lockable toilet for use by all customers, and it would not need to change anything. It may be helpful for the House to know that the EHRC will be running a session to answer questions from Members of Parliament later this week, and there may be some matters that the hon. Lady wishes to raise directly.

The EHRC code of practice fails everyone. It effectively pushes trans people out of public life, it subjects all women to gender policing based on stereotypes, and it does not provide clarity to organisations that want to be trans-inclusive. For example, a charity that wants to put on a women’s coffee morning that is open to the public cannot, according to the guidance, be trans inclusive without being open to the whole public. The Government’s equality impact assessment warns of the disproportionate risk of violence and sexual assault towards trans women if they are forced to use men’s services, as well as the increased harassment of anyone who does not conform to gender stereotypes. Why are the Government pushing ahead with this? Why not instead withdraw the guidance, and legislate to clarify that the Equality Act 2010 was always intended to be trans inclusive? For goodness’ sake, it was passed after the last Labour Government passed the Gender Recognition Act in 2004.

The Government are proud of the Equality Act, and we will always protect and uphold it. I want to pick up on my hon. Friend’s question about associations, because it is clear in the draft code that if an association is, and describes itself as, for women only, the draft code indicates that that should be on the basis of biological sex. However, if an association wants to be trans-inclusive, it does not say that its services need to be open to absolutely everybody. The draft code’s section on associations based on more than one protected characteristic means that they can do so by choosing their membership by both sex and gender reassignment. It is important that we continue to ensure that that is as clear as possible.

This is definitely better late than never, and after listening to the Lib Dem spokesperson—I cannot believe I am going to say this—I am actually grateful that we have a Labour Government and not a Lib Dem Government, because what the Lib Dems have just said is absolutely shocking. They do not respect the rule of law at all. On that note, I am going to ask a technical question. Did the Secretary of State formally reject the draft code of practice, as submitted by the EHRC in September 2025? If so, please can the Minister provide us with a copy of the written reasons given, as per section 14 of the Equality Act 2006?

I have shared the process that we have been through, which is in line with the process outlined in the Equality Act 2006. It is important to note that, in line with that process, we have seen the consultation with the devolved Administrations; that work has also been done by the EHRC; and the Secretary of State has now laid the draft code before the House, as she committed to do.

I wonder whether the Minister could clarify this specific point. If a single-sex organisation wanted to open its doors to trans people, would that be to all trans people, or could a women’s organisation, for example, open its doors or membership to trans women exclusively?

I know that my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on individual cases. It is important to note that there is guidance in the draft code, with worked examples, and if an organisation is unsure, it will be important for it to be able to consult that guidance and to take legal advice, should it so wish, but there is also experience and common sense involved in this, as well as the application of the draft code with its examples that I think will provide answers to all organisations as to how they should proceed with the services they provide.