Two of us put our heads together and have submitted the following. More obviously very welcome. If there is appetite for in-person discussion or activism around this issue I'm happy to (vet and) arrange it.
Complaints to Lewisham: lewisham.gov.uk/mayorandcouncil/complaints-and-feedback/how-to-send-us-a-complaint-or-feedback
*
Mayor Shrivastava,
We are writing to you regarding the recent statement published by Lewisham Council concerning the EHRC's updated Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice (CoP).
We agree with you that all residents of our borough deserve to live with dignity and safety and have no desire to see trans people excluded from council services. We are, like many, firmly in favour of the provision of third spaces where these can be appropriately and safely implemented.
However, we are concerned that in your focus on ensuring inclusivity for trans residents, the council is disregarding the importance of protecting single-sex spaces for natal women and girls in a context where they continue to be subject to disproportionate levels of assault, abuse and harassment (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2024) which in our view and in law underpins the existence of single sex provision.
It is essential that the council acknowledges that provision for trans people cannot be made at the expense of these established protections and that women and girls' rights and experience have weight. Any future approach to service design must be handled with care, acknowledging the needs of the whole population of the borough, including those for whom single-sex provision is a necessity for cultural, religious, or personal safety reasons and to whom the council has an equal obligation.
As you know, the CoP is designed to protect women in single-sex spaces. This is following on from the Supreme Court's April 2025 decision in For Women Scotland that the interpretation of UK equality law requires terms such as 'man' and 'woman' to be read with their ordinary biological meanings. That means that women's services which are sex-segregated - among them changing rooms, rape crisis centres and hospital wards - must not be open to men, whatever their gender identity. This does not mean transgender people have in some way lost legal protection - they are protected under equality law. The EHRC also provides public-facing organisations with practical advice about how to comply with the law.
We would be grateful if you could clarify the council's specific approach to the day-to-day management of its services. Specifically, how does the council intend to ensure the continued accessibility and privacy of, for example, female-only swimming, gym, and dance sessions'which are vital services for many local residents'as well as the management of toilet and changing facilities across our public sites? And how does the council intend to ensure that services for some of its most vulnerable women, including domestic abuse services, rape crisis services and refuges - appropriately meet their needs?
The council is right to be conscious of the experience of different minorities within the borough. However, a truly egalitarian, inclusive and conciliatory approach must also recognise that Lewisham is home to a diverse population with a wide range of needs. We believe that working to achieve a balance where provision is thoughtfully designed to be inclusive of all residents, rather than prioritising the needs of one group to the detriment of another is the most appropriate use of council resources. It also importantly fulfils the council's obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty - which, counter to your assertions in your motion - already protects right of trans people from discrimination, harassment and victimisation under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, alongside, and with an equal weighting to, the eight other protected characteristics, including sex.
A challenge by the council against the EHRC Code of Practice, underpinned as it is by the ruling of the Supreme Court, would represent a gross misuse of the council's resources which runs counter to your obligations as part of Best Value duties and leaves you open to legal challenge and scrutiny, including by the Local Government Ombudsman at the point of which service users are affected by your decisions.
At a time when local government resources are severely constrained, we would expect you to focus resources on delivering the best outcomes for all residents rather than pursuing - at potentially significant cost to the council - a position which is at odds with your responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 (including the promotion of good relations between communities), on which you have not undertaken any public consultation and on which the EHRC and Supreme Court have conclusively ruled.
We look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter and understanding the council's strategy for navigating these issues in practice. We would appreciate a response to this letter within the timescales set out by Lewisham Council's complaints procedure.
Name 1
Name 2