For Women Scotland Case

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to implement the Supreme Court judgement in the For Women Scotland case within Government departments to ensure full compliance with the law.

My Lords, the Supreme Court ruling brings clarity for women and service providers. We expect all duty bearers to follow the law and seek legal advice where necessary, and this includes government departments. Departments have been updating policies following the Supreme Court ruling. Internal Civil Service guidance is also currently under review. We will ensure that any guidance is consistent with the code of practice for services, public functions and associations.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. A quarter of all women have experienced male violence at least once in their lives. That is one reason why biological males are excluded from women’s safe spaces—except, that is, in government. For more than a year, the Government have failed women by not restoring their single-sex spaces. The Empire State Building was built in a year and 45 days, but that does not seem to be enough time for the Government to sort out some toilets. Either the Government do not really care about the safety of women and girls or they are just incompetent. Which is it?

I think I have said before that this is a complex issue. It has also been a debate—

Oh!

Can I just say this? It has been a debate that has been rather toxic. What we need is a bit of understanding and compassion. There has been no delay. We have been looking at this very carefully and we have been clear that the Supreme Court judgment must be complied with. There is no doubt about that. We have not been delaying anything. We have been clear from the beginning that the Supreme Court judgment must be complied with. If people have any doubt about it, they can seek legal advice. There are complex issues in relation to policies and procedures, not least that we have clear legal obligations to ensure that there is equality and fair treatment for all in every sector of our employment.

My Lords, can I ask my noble friend the Minister a practical question relating to the place that we all work in? The Government have responsibilities not only for the Whitehall department but for the Palace of Westminster, which is, as noble Lords know, a grade 1 listed historic building, presenting a particular architectural challenge. Can my noble friend say whether guidance on implementing the judgment will include practical advice on accommodating third spaces in buildings where structural adaptation is constrained and whether we are going to receive that notice and advice in time to act on it? Indeed, will it be incorporated into the R&R proposals?

My noble friend will understand that I must declare an interest: I am on the programme board for R&R. The original legislation made it clear that accessibility and equality are key parts of the R&R programme. That is the most important thing. It is not simply about access to toilets; people cannot even get around this building, and that is an issue that we need to address. I am afraid I cannot be tempted to comment on the code. As my noble friend knows, that is now subject to purdah, but I can say that we have asked the EHRC to provide information on costs so that Ministers can make a fully informed decision. That is part of the process. We have asked the EHRC to provide a de minimis proportionate cost assessment so that Ministers can have sight of the cost implications that the guidance will incur when taking their decision.

My Lords, it is becoming a little repetitive for the House to hear for over a year that the Government must comply with the law of the land. We understand that the Minister’s role is to represent the Government, so I wonder why he cannot explain why he is not complying with the law. He has mentioned the pre-election sensitivity period now, which is the latest reason given by the Government for not laying the EHRC code of practice. I have looked it up and more than 60 statutory instruments have been laid during this period. That pre-election guidance, published by his Government on 2 March, applies only to primary legislation. Will the Minister tell the House whether he has consulted the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office and/or the legislative secretariat of the Cabinet Office to find out whether he can lay the code? If he has not done so, why not? Will he also lay that advice in the Library for all to see?

I have huge respect for the noble Baroness, but I do not accept for one moment that there has been a deliberate delay in implementing this code. I have been very clear. These are complex issues and they need proper consideration. The purdah arrangements are clear. We have received advice from the Cabinet Secretary. I have been very clear that we cannot comment on the code. The Government have made a commitment that the code will be laid as soon as possible after the election. That means in May—not in spring, not in six months, in May. We are being very clear. Cat Little, the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, wrote to the Women and Equalities Select Committee’s chair to explain the background to the Minister’s Statement on 14 April. That letter is in the Library of the House of Commons. It clarifies restrictions during pre-election periods as set out in the guidance to civil servants. It is absolutely clear. I can reassure the noble Baroness that we are following proper process in relation to this code.

My Lords, on 16 April, the one-year anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court judgment confirming that sex in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, the Conservative Party announced that Conservative-run councils will publish clear, legally compliant policies on single-sex spaces and services. I also confirm that Conservative-run councils will publish their own single-sex policies and ensure that they are operational. Conservative-run councils will also act to ensure that funding and contracts will be withdrawn from third-party providers that do not comply with the law. Will the Government act now to ensure that Labour-run councils—indeed, all councils—understand that they must comply with the law?

I do not understand why I need to repeat myself so often. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear. The Supreme Court judgment must be complied with. It is the law. Whether or not the Conservative Party needs to explain to the electorate, “We will comply with the law”, there is no doubt about it: we will ensure that the law is complied with. However, there are implications for policies that need to be properly examined, which is why we have the code and why it needs to be considered as a whole. It is disingenuous to constantly say, “Conservative councils will comply with the law” when every council has an obligation to comply with it.

My Lords, may I state the obvious? Trans people pose a threat to no one; lawbreakers pose the threat. Having said that, given that trans people represent approximately 0.55% of the population in England according to the 2021 census, can my noble friend the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of the cost to the public purse of adapting facilities across central government departments to comply with the judgment and whether that assessment has been shared with the Treasury?

I thank my noble friend. There has been constant reference to the Government’s position on the protection of women, and we are absolutely committed to ensure that we can absolutely say that violence against women and girls is a thing of the past. We are absolutely determined to end that. Violence against women and girls is not about toilets. But we have been very clear on single-sex spaces, and the Supreme Court judgment is clear. To answer the specific question from my noble friend, we have asked the EHRC to consider costs so that we can have a full consideration of the implications of those costs before a decision is made. However, I will not be tempted into commenting on the contents of the code because of the purdah arrangements that are in place.