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. 

For duty bearers, the draft code provides further clarity on how service providers can follow the Supreme Court ruling in practice. Although it cannot cover every single scenario, the EHRC has provided key explanations and worked examples, meaning that there is something that every organisation can take from it and apply in their own context with common sense. If a service provider still is not sure, perhaps because of a quite specific circumstance, they should take legal advice. 

For clarity, the draft code indicates that a single-sex service should be provided on the basis of biological sex, so a women-only service should be for biological women only.

Service providers should find that the code provides certainty and clarity on who can access single-sex services and how they can best ensure women’s privacy, dignity and safety.

The code encourages services to communicate their policy on single-sex provision clearly, empowering women to make informed choices when accessing services. This could be especially useful for those women who, for feelings of safety or cultural or religious reasons, are unable to share some spaces with men. The draft code is also clear that trans people should not be left without services to use. Providers could provide mixed-sex facilities or specific support for trans people. We believe service providers will be able to find the right balance for everyone. 

Members have raised accessing toilet facilities. The code indicates that toilets designated as male or female should be for those of that biological sex. Trans people can use accessible toilets, individual lockable toilets or unisex toilets. The draft code reflects that there must be toilet services for all, and many businesses and service providers will already meet those requirements. For example, a small café might have only one or two individual locked toilets for use by all customers. The draft code provides practical guidance on different ways to comply with the law. Some organisations will not need to make any changes at all and for those that do, in the majority of cases, we are talking about changing signs on existing facilities or updating them so that they are fully enclosed. 

What the code does not provide is the right for members of the public to challenge one another on their sex and access to those spaces. People have been using single-sex spaces with a sensible and respectful attitude to other users for years and will continue to do so. Most people have the common sense to step in when necessary, when a person of the opposite biological sex enters a single-sex facility in error, for example, or to know when to alert a member of staff. The draft code provides clarity to service providers to ensure that people have access to services that are private and safe.

I am aware that some have also raised concerns over the code’s content regarding special category personal data. The code states that where an individual is asked to confirm their sex, that should be done sensitively and with respect for their privacy. The draft code explains that information about sex is likely to constitute special category personal data, where, for example, asking about sex may lead to the disclosure of someone’s medical history or the fact that they have a gender recognition certificate. The code advises providers to handle such conversations appropriately. We will work with the EHRC to ensure that service providers understand what is required of them when handling data.

There is also an interest in associations. If an association is for “women only”, the draft code indicates that that should be on the basis of biological sex. The draft code’s section on associations based on more than one protected characteristic means that an association that wants to be trans-inclusive can do so by basing its membership on both sex and gender reassignment.

There are also changes to disability, maternity and pregnancy protections. The draft code highlights protections for disabled people in the Equality Act that expand on what was included in the previous code, such as non-discrimination in relation to access to services. This will be the first time they are recognised and explained in the code. This is an important step for disabled people’s rights.

For pregnant and breastfeeding women, the updated code highlights that harassment relating to breastfeeding may also constitute unlawful harassment on the grounds of sex, confirming that women are protected. The code also highlights that while the protected characteristic of pregnancy and maternity is not covered directly under the harassment protections in the Act, it is indirectly covered, as such harassment amounts to harassment related to sex.

We note the wider interest in the implementation of the For Women Scotland judgment and the draft code across Government. We are committed to doing this and are working across Departments, considering the implications of the code on policies and activities.

The Equality Act is one of the most significant achievements in modern British history which was enacted by the previous Labour Government. It is the quiet guardian in millions of people’s daily lives. This Government will uphold and protect it, not weaken it. We are grateful to the EHRC for its work on the draft code to ensure that duty bearers and service users have up-to-date guidance on the Equality Act. We will always uphold our British values of treating everyone with dignity and respect. I commend this statement to the House.

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?

The code of practice is right to emphasise the importance of protecting single-sex spaces and services for women, but the law has been settled since the Supreme Court judgment over a year ago. Sex means biological sex, and yet the Secretary of State has failed to enforce that ruling and women have faced ongoing harassment and discrimination for stating that basic fact. We have seen cases such as the Darlington nurses, who were hounded out of their roles or drawn into lengthy tribunal processes for asserting their legal right not to share changing rooms with men. The Government have done nothing to protect them. What does the Secretary of State and the Minister say to those many women whose privacy, safety and dignity have been compromised during these nine months of inaction? Why did the Secretary of State fail to get a grip on her own Government when Department after Department claimed that they could not update their policies while awaiting the code?

The Minister said in her statement: “We are committed to doing this and are working across Departments, considering the implications of the code to policies and activities.” Is that why, more than a year after the Supreme Court ruling, the NHS still has not updated its policy on single-sex spaces for staff? Perhaps following the new Health Secretary’s recent remarks there may be greater clarity in the wider Labour Government about what a woman is, but this revisionist mindset about Labour’s supposed long-term support for single-sex spaces will frankly be fresh news to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield). Will the Minister set out the steps that all Departments will now take to comply with the code, and will they all do so without further delay?

In the meantime, some have sought actively to misrepresent this issue as an attack on trans people. It is not. It is simply about applying the law correctly while safeguarding women and girls. I think the Green party’s deputy leaders’ inflammatory rhetoric is reprehensible and unhelpful, especially at the start of Pride Month. Not to be outdone, we are witnessing peak Lib Dem-ery, with the party leader claiming to accept the Supreme Court’s judgment while opposing the guidance that flows from it. As has rightly been said, that position is unprincipled. Only the Liberal Democrats can claim to support the rule of law while rejecting the practical application of it.

This code of practice is welcome. As the Minister said, it covers a broad range of areas including age, disability, pregnancy and maternity, race and so much more, but, disgracefully, it has landed nine months overdue—and helpfully after local elections in which we women voted. During that time, women have paid the price of inaction. Now that the code has finally been published, women and girls need proper action—not hiding away, not further delay and not more excuses. We need the immediate enforcement of the rights that women and girls are entitled to under the law of this land.

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.

In relation to guidance for the NHS, it is helpful for the House to know that NHS England is currently reviewing its guidance and will ensure that it reflects the Supreme Court ruling in the For Women Scotland v. The Scottish Ministers case. It will also take account of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s statutory code of practice.

It is important to note that although the code does not directly apply to employers, its explanation of the Equality Act 2010—particularly around unlawful discrimination and harassment—will be relevant to and helpful for employers in considering how best to comply with their obligations under that legislation. The EHRC has a separate employment code of practice, which it also intends to update in the future.

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?

For trans, non-binary and intersex people, the code operates from a position of exclusion. It risks driving those small minorities away from public life, as leading mental health charities have since warned. The guidance conflicts with our core British values of tolerance, decency, respect for individual liberty and the rule of law. That is why I urge the Minister to withdraw it and to accept that this issue needs to be resolved by Parliament as law makers. To achieve that, I beg the Minister to adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal to appoint a joint committee of cross-party MPs and peers, to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, taking evidence from all communities who have been impacted, in order to propose amendments or new legislation that it sees as necessary to ensure that existing rights are protected. If we work together we can fix this; sowing division will not.

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.

I am really appalled, frankly, with the response from the official Opposition. Just a few Prime Ministers ago, Theresa May said:

“Indeed when it comes to rights and protections for trans people, there is still a long way to go.”

Well, how far the Tory party has fallen from those words. As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I attended the evidence session when we interviewed the new chair of the EHRC, and for the Minister to say that that was an independent process when the Government rammed it through despite cross-party consensus that the new chair was not fit for the role is, quite frankly, surprising. I also want to pick up on the fact that the Minister said that we should “treat these issues sensitively”. Today is the start of Pride Month. To do this today, of all days, is not just a kick in the teeth but a slap in the face for LGBT people across this country. I want to know what the Minister would say to my constituents who have told me how they have been challenged in toilets because they live their lives as trans people already, before this guidance was put forward. Why does she think this will make it any better? What basis does she have for that suggestion?

The hon. Member will be aware that people have operated in society with respect for each other in relation to single-sex spaces for a long time, and that will continue to be the case. It is important to note that access to a toilet should be very clear, and to recognise the Supreme Court ruling in relation to toilets: toilets that are designated as male or female should be for those of that biological sex. However, facilities can be provided in other ways, and a large number of organisations across the country already do so, whether by providing unisex toilets or individual lockable toilets. That means that those facilities are accessible by anybody.

I have listened very carefully to my constituents who identify as trans. One thing that is very clear is from the EHRC guidance is that it will cost organisations a significant amount to put on additional services and facilities if they are to become inclusive organisations. What discussions have taken place with the Treasury to ensure that organisations are supported to build an inclusive society?

I reiterate what the EHRC has said: it expects that businesses will already be compliant with most aspects of the draft code. My hon. Friend may also be referring to Government services. We are committed to making sure that the Government estate is 100% compliant with the requirements of the Equality Act and in line with the EHRC guidance.

I am going to try to get some clarity, because my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) asked when there will be written explanations of the draft changes, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul). In both answers, the Minister talked about process. Well, process dictates that there should be written answers, so when will we see them in this House?

I am aware that the shadow Secretary of State has written to the EHRC, and I am sure that the EHRC will be engaging directly in relation to those specific questions.

What this place does best is scrutiny. That is why it is so problematic that this legislation is coming forward in a draft form as a negative statutory instrument. This guidance falls apart on hard contact with the real world. I will quote back to the Minister something that she just said in her statement, because businesses in my local community, which just want to be cafés or restaurants, will be troubled by it. She said that the guidance

“does not provide…the right for members of the public to challenge one another on their sex and access to those spaces”,

but she also said that

“where an individual is asked to confirm their sex, this should be done sensitively”.

Most businesses will be deeply confused as to whether somebody can be challenged, and frankly they do not want fights between their customers. Does the Minister accept that, to prevent being people’s gender being judged by their appearance—which we know will harm many more people than, I suspect, even those people who wish to see harm through this guidance would like—the safest option for most businesses will be getting rid of women’s toilets altogether? Will that not be an inevitable consequence of this guidance?

It will be for organisations to make decisions about how they comply with the law, and different organisations will choose different ways of doing so. In the majority of cases, we are talking about changing signs on existing facilities or updating them so they may be fully enclosed. As I mentioned before, the code does not provide the right for members of the public to challenge one another on their sex or access to those spaces, but most people will have the common sense to step in where necessary or, if they are concerned, to alert a member of staff.

I would also like to refer the Minister to her own words. She described the Equality Act as

“one of the most significant achievements in modern British history”.

I think we would all agree with that, but she then went on to describe it as the

“quiet guardian in millions of people’s daily lives”

and said that

“This Government will uphold and protect it, not weaken it”.

She will look very hard before she finds a member of the LGBTQ community in this country who believes that. Regardless of what the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) might think, I fully respect the Supreme Court’s judgment, but I believe the Supreme Court judged on the letter of the law, not on the spirit of that historic achievement that the Minister described. In order to reflect the spirit of that, do we not now need to look carefully at the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and ensure that all people in this country—including women and the LGBT community, because their rights are not mutually exclusive—get the protection that was envisaged in that law, in both its letter and spirit?

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I do want, however, to challenge her on some of what she said. It is important to recognise and reassure trans people that there are still protections in the Equality Act via the gender reassignment protected characteristic, and this includes direct and indirect discrimination. It is also important to note and not to take for granted the choices that we make in government; they are active choices to pursue and support people’s rights. The Government have also recently updated hate crime legislation to make hate crimes against LGBT people an aggravated offence. We will also shortly bring forward legislation for a trans-inclusive conversion practice ban to end that abusive practice. It is important not to say that we are not supportive of trans rights and LGBT+ rights. We must recognise the progress we are making where we can, the complexity of the debate we are having today, and the importance of ensuring that, in complying with the law, we are supporting women and single-sex spaces alongside treating trans people with respect and dignity.

I thank the Minister for her statement and her attempts to present it in quite an even and fair way, because this debate is already far too toxic. She will acknowledge, however, that the guidance will change the lives of many people, particularly those who have been living as trans for many years. She is right that we should protect the rights of women and trans people, but I am keen to understand what that means for those delivering single-sex services that only have very limited space—no space to create that third space. What do they do? If they are a charity, where do they find funding to make that happen?

My hon. Friend will find that similar scenarios are shared in some of the guidance and the worked examples. For the vast majority of organisations, the changes may actually be very small. As organisations seek to comply with the guidance and the law, it is important to recognise that if there are changes to be made, as I said, in the vast majority of cases, they will be very small, and that they can take advice should they be unsure.

It has been over a year since the verdict, so what is the Minister doing to persuade non-compliant public sector bodies, like the NHS, to implement the Supreme Court ruling at the earliest possible opportunity?

The hon. Gentleman may not have heard me reference the work that the NHS is doing. It is important that it is able to continue that work and that we ensure that other Government Departments still working through the implications are able to do so and bring forward their policies.

I cannot be the only Member to have had dozens of emails from constituents who are dismayed that, under this guidance, the vague, ill-defined and highly subjective term “discomfort of service users” becomes the litmus test for excluding people from essential services. I heard what the Minister said about associations, but can we be clear whether public spaces will still be able to provide trans-inclusive services? If that is not the case, I feel that this guidance is simply unreasonable, unfair and unworkable.

My hon. Friend is right; it is extremely important that as we take forward the draft code and its implications, and as we look to how we ensure compliance with the law, we do support women and their rights to single-sex services and spaces, but that we do so while ensuring that we are meeting the needs of trans people too. That is incumbent on all of us in this House.

At the beginning of Pride Month, a number of trans people will be unsettled and anxious about the contents of the statement today; they will be wondering how on earth they will safely access public services. Not only have we fallen to No. 22 in the rainbow index, but we are now 45th out of 49 European nations for the service of transgender people across Europe. Can the Minister give us any explanation for why we have fallen so low? What impact does she expect this code of practice to have on those league table positions?

I always thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. This draft code has more worked examples and it has seen consultation. He is able to speak directly with the EHRC about the way in which it has consulted and brought forward the draft code. As I have said, it is incredibly important that we have a balance, so that we are protecting single-sex spaces for women—and that should not be in conflict with ensuring that trans people continue to be protected from harassment and discrimination. I want to reiterate that the Supreme Court warned

“against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”.

It is important to get this right for everyone.

The proposed code of practice represents a major and worrying change in how equality law may operate in practice for trans people and service providers. A number of LGBTQ+ charities and equality organisations have warned that the guidance risks legitimising exclusion and increasing harassment of both trans people and gender non-conforming cis people. A number of my constituents across Stourbridge have contacted me because they are deeply concerned by the proposed changes. Will the Minister confirm whether this House will have the opportunity to debate and to vote on the final code of practice before anything comes into force?

We are certainly having some of that debate today, and it will certainly be possible for hon. Members to bring forward questions and raise matters in the usual way. My hon. Friend may well wish to raise issues and discuss them directly with the EHRC when it has its meeting for Members of Parliament, and I am sure she will continue to raise these matters in the House in the usual ways.

Oxford is proud to have the highest proportion of trans and non-binary people of any area outside London, so it was with sadness that I received an email from a constituent, Jennie, who already accompanies their spouse, who is trans, to the toilet, because she is so worried for their safety. Last year, 3,800 hate crimes were reported against trans people, and the worry in the community is that things will only get worse, not better, as a result of this guidance. This weekend is Oxford Pride, and the Liberal Democrats and I will stand proudly with our trans and non-binary neighbours.

My question to the Minister is simple: what if she is wrong? What if her assurance that this decision will protect trans and non-binary rights does not come to pass and the situation gets worse? Is she open to working with others across this House to fix this issue, or is this a done deal?

The hon. Lady has great experience in this House, and she will know about the processes of engagement. She will also know about the consultation and the engagement that the EHRC has had in the development of the guidance and the fact that there were two periods of consultation last year. She may well wish to raise some matters with the EHRC directly, but it is important to recognise that we must respond to the ruling from the Supreme Court. It is also important to recognise that in upholding the law as it is in the Equality Act, we have a responsibility both to protect single-sex spaces and to ensure that the rights of trans people are respected and their services and needs are supported. I am sure that the hon. Lady will continue to raise those concerns.

As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have concerns that human rights that have long applied to trans people since the Gender Recognition Act 2004 will no longer apply. I am afraid that that will be the case more broadly than in the areas that the Minister mentioned in her statement. When read together, paragraphs 2.5 and 2.92 of the code imply that a transgender person and a cisgender person who are in a relationship can no longer enjoy the rights that they have enjoyed since the introduction of the Act—for instance, in terms of their relationship being respected, registered and recognised by the law. Has there been a human rights analysis of the EHRC guidance? The right to family life appears to be under threat from it.

I suggest that my hon. Friend raises that matter with the EHRC. I am not sure that I completely agree with his conclusions, but I am very happy to meet with him and discuss the matter further.

As we begin Pride Month, I reiterate my party’s solidarity with trans people, who are valued members of our communities in Wales and deserve continued protection from harassment and discrimination. We will uphold the rule of law through the Welsh Government, but as we have heard on numerous occasions today, in this guidance it appears that there is a lack of clear, workable guidance for services supporting transgender people, which is causing huge concerns. The Minister has mentioned consultation with devolved Governments, but what assurance can she give me that the UK Government will work with the Welsh Government to support inclusive services?

The right hon. Lady will agree with me when I say that transgender people are valued members of all our communities across the whole country. I am happy to assure her that we will continue to engage with our devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland. Engagement is an important part of how we move forward on all issues.

I am being contacted by so many transgender constituents, who say to me that the EHRC guidance is in conflict with the Equality Act. They feel that the guidance is absolutely making things worse for transgender people, who feel further stigmatised and isolated. What would the Minister say to my constituents regarding how they feel?

I think we all want to ensure that trans people across the country feel supported. As we move forward on how the draft code provides guidance, with the worked examples and the extensive consultation that has gone on, I hope we will see progress in how we strike the balance we need between supporting women and their rights and treating trans people with dignity. It is important that we continue to deal with this topic sensitively and with respect, and to make sure we engage as we move forward.

I pay tribute to Bourne Out LGBT and Bourne This Way in Eastbourne, which do great work to advance the rights of LGBT folks locally. I also pay tribute to LGBT+ Lib Dems and Liberal Democrat Women, which do great work within my party to advance equality, unlike this code of practice, which is unworkable for all, immoral for all and undermines equality for all. The Government’s own equality impact assessment has said of the draft code that

“Women who are considered masculine may face greater scrutiny about their sex as a result of the changes. This will likely have a negative impact on this group”.

In what way does this enhance the privacy, dignity and safety of women?

The draft code is there to provide further clarity on how service providers can follow the Supreme Court ruling in practice. It cannot cover every scenario, but with the worked examples, there is something that every organisation can take and apply, in its own context and with common sense. It is also important that if a service provider is still unsure, it can take legal advice, but in addition, there will be an expectation that organisations are able to undertake training for their staff so that if there is any concern, there is a process to deal with any issue sensitively.

I have concerns about the code and its implementation, although these largely stem from the Supreme Court judgment and its seeming disregard for the Gender Recognition Act. While we are operating within the law as set by the Supreme Court, we should also recognise the anxiety and trauma that the judgment has caused many people in our communities, including mine in Exeter. Does the Minister agree that the onus is on duty bearers to be inclusive and transparent when it comes to services and organisations, given that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, and can she provide a bit more clarity on her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)? Does someone have the right to challenge someone in a service or an area such as a single-sex toilet, or do they not? If they do have that right, how might someone prove their biological sex, especially if they have a gender recognition certificate?

It is important to clarify that we continue to have engagement, and my hon. Friend may want to raise some of those matters with the EHRC. What we have said about challenging is that, prior to this debate, people have been able to sensitively say when somebody is walking into the wrong toilet, and to raise that. If there is a concern that goes beyond that, they should alert a member of staff. We expect that there will be training within organisations, and that organisations will see themselves as having a responsibility to ensure they are providing an inclusive service to all. As we continue to move forward with this debate, it is important that that training takes place, so that issues are dealt with sensitively and that individuals and organisations do not feel that either they do not have a way of asking, or it is not being handled in a proportionate way.

One of my constituents described this code of conduct as “trans apartheid”. Another said that it was “state-sponsored repression”. Let us flip it, because we always talk about trans women; let us talk about trans men. If the rules say that somebody cannot enter a toilet of the gender that they were not born, a trans man is no longer allowed to go into a men’s toilet, but they also may not be allowed to go into a ladies’ toilet—their sex at birth—because at that point, they might become a threatening prospect for some people. They often are exceptionally well built young people, and a woman can say that they feel uncomfortable about that person in their toilets. Where are the human rights and privacy of the trans person in all this? I am concerned that we have missed the very group of people who are most affected.

The draft code says that if someone has concerns about users of the opposite sex, or those perceived to be of the opposite sex, and raises those concerns with a service provider, the service provider can ask those users to confirm their sex, but that this should be done sensitively and with their privacy protected. It also outlines that staff should be equipped to handle such sensitive situations. If someone still wants to engage someone whom they believe to be in the wrong space, we would expect them to do so in a way that does not compromise anyone’s safety. Women should not have to face intrusive questioning simply because they do not conform to feminine stereotypes, and the draft code is explicit that service providers must handle any such queries sensitively and proportionately. Everyone must have access to the services that they need.

A number of my constituents have raised concerns about this draft code. One trans woman wrote to me to say that she and her partner are frightened for her safety and ability to take part in public life. She fears being forced to stay at home, rather than risk humiliation, confrontation or even being outed in public if she cannot use public facilities safely. Can the Minister reassure me and the House that as the code is considered, the Government will ensure that trans people are not effectively driven out of public life and remain able to participate safely, fully and with dignity?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that no one should be driven out of public life or denied the ability to live their life as they wish. She raises an important point about why this must be done so sensitively, and why it is an important responsibility for service providers to be able to respond and adapt as needed to ensure that we have an inclusive society. It is not unreasonable to expect there to be safe and private toilets for people to use when they are out and about.

I suggest to the Minister that the very clear Supreme Court judgment and the resulting guidance render the Gender Recognition Act 2004 irrational. That Act persists with the fiction that by filling out a few forms, someone can change their sex on official documents. The Supreme Court was clear that gender recognition certificates are of no effect in changing one’s legal sex. Is it not time that we stop pretending under any guise that one can change one’s sex or change biological reality?

I will say one thing in response to the hon. and learned Gentleman, which is that it is extremely important that we treat trans people with respect. Secondly, the Equality Act will continue to protect trans people and their rights in law.

I welcome the clarity that the code brings for service providers, and I note, too, that Women’s Aid is just one of the organisations that has welcomed it. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Supreme Court judgment and the code have not revoked any rights for anyone, but have confirmed single-sex rights that protect women and girls?

I was not quite clear about that question, but I will say that the draft guidance is about supporting women and their rights and the provision of single-sex spaces, alongside treating trans people with dignity, and that will continue to be our focus.

I too have been contacted by a great many trans people, and their families and friends, who have expressed genuine fear about the implications of this guidance. We have heard about the practicalities. I have heard from someone who has cancelled a hip operation because they are not sure that they will be treated with dignity when they go into hospital. I hear from people who are changing their patterns of work, travel and leisure because they cannot be certain that they can use toilets unchallenged, and therefore face an extra risk of violence. However, what comes through very strongly from all of them is the challenge that this presents to their identity. Many of them have lived for decades in their gender, and now they are thinking about potentially having to say to their colleagues at work—people who think of them as being of that gender, because it is all they have ever known them as— “Actually, I was born in a different gender, so can you tell me how I can use the toilets, how I can use the changing room?” This is just unacceptable.

Order. The hon. Lady really must get to a question—she has spoken for nearly as long as her party’s Front Bencher.

Will the Minister consider changing the law so that the Equality Act lives up to its name?

I believe that the Equality Act does live up to its name, and I am proud of the Equality Act. I think that what we are discussing here is compliance with the law, and I know that the whole House will want to send the message that no one should be concerned about going for operations or accessing services. It is important that any concerns are raised directly with those who are providing those services, and I am sure that reassurance will be given. I think that, in relation to the debate we are having, the hon. Lady will know that it is important that we get the balance right between supporting women and their rights, and ensuring that we uphold respect for all trans people.

I try to start from a position of empathy on this topic. I have no idea what it is to experience the pain of being born in a body that does not accord with one’s gender, and I do not know what it is to have the very real fear of assault that women live with, so I recognise the need for understanding and balance. However, I do not think that there is sufficient balance in this guidance. Given its focus on “proportionality”, businesses and organisations are forced to make judgment calls in a highly sensitive area. There is a real risk that the guidance will create a situation in which trans people, who already face high levels of discrimination, are subject to a urinary leash controlling where they can go. Will the Minister please tell me how the Government will ensure that they are not excluded from services and are welcomed into public spaces, as everyone should be?

As I have said before, it is extremely important that everyone has access to the services and facilities that they need. It is also important to recognise that, while balance does matter, there are worked examples and explanations in the extensive draft code of practice which I hope will provide reassurance as we move forward, and as organisations feel that they have the clarity they need to make the changes to ensure that they comply with the law.

I think it is clear from these exchanges that this is an issue that divides the House, and it also divides the country. There are many different opinions. Will the Minister commit herself to putting the statutory instrument to a vote?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the process in the Equality Act 2006, which we are following. However, he may want to raise some of his concerns and have a discussion with the EHRC, which has undertaken extensive guidance and continues to engage with stakeholders.

The High Court judgment of February this year against the EHRC, when the initial guidance was challenged, stated:

“there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the ‘female’ lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex.”

The clear implication is that providers may choose to offer trans-inclusive services. Can the Minister explain how the EHRC’s code of practice is at all consistent with that?

Although the draft code indicates that toilets designated as male or female should be for those of that biological sex, it is also the case that it will contain sufficient guidance for organisations to make their own decisions about changing the signs, making clear the use of accessible toilets in line with building regulations about smaller spaces, and providing individual, lockable toilets or unisex toilets. There are many ways in which we can ensure inclusivity, and it is important that we do so.

My hon. Friend has rightly talked about the need to avoid using any particular group as a political football and the need to treat everyone with dignity and respect. I agree with her on that, but the Government’s own equality impact assessment says:

“The debate on single sex services and the treatment of trans people is particularly divisive at this time. The Code of Practice may exacerbate these tensions.”

Does she accept the Government’s own impact assessment on that point?

My hon. Friend highlights aspects of what has been written in the impact assessment, but it is also important to note that the Government want to reassure trans people that they have protections under the Equality Act, which is clearly the case via the gender reassignment protected characteristic. As we move forward, it is important that we do so together, that as organisations and businesses implement changes we also learn as we go, all organisations feel supported in ensuring compliance with the law, and that in providing single-sex spaces, we do so with respect and dignity for all trans people.