Westminster Hall debate on 'gc' beliefs and the EA

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c78a22b7-7a58-4a85-bc9e-bfb8b6b88622

'Westminster Hall debate: Gender critical beliefs and the Equality Act 2010'

Hansard:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-11/debates/0DC93310-7660-4E07-8FE6-5A4DB4422104/GenderCriticalBeliefsEqualityAct2010

Debate is led by Rosie Duffield.

Tracy Gilbert, Edinburgh North & Leith, raises the case of Roz Adams.

'Does the hon. Member agree that targeting women with gender critical views in turn targets women advocating for women’s services, especially for women survivors of rape and sexual assault?'

Rosie Duffield: 'I have yet to speak to a single British voter who believes that a man should have whatever access he desires to spaces where women are getting dressed or undressed for work.'

Rosie Duffield:

'I have been hounded, harassed, sidelined and briefed against by a party now in government. It is time the Government got to grips with this issue, perhaps by following the lead of the incredibly brave women I have referenced here and the unsung foot soldiers who fight for women’s rights in the workplace the world over.'

Thanks Arabella

Dame Nia Griffith talks about freedom of speech/expression.

Jonathan Hinder
(Pendle and Clitheroe)

'Does the Minister accept that in recent years being respectful of others’ views has meant silencing those who have gender critical beliefs? [...]Does she agree that it is up to this Labour Government to ensure that those views are genuinely respected, rather than silencing those with gender critical views?'

Thank you. Am interested to hear what is said in opposition and by who. It’s so, so ruddy sensible to be GC.

Rebecca Smith [South West Devon]

'...the last Conservative manifesto committed to reforming the Equality Act to protect single-sex spaces and services for women and girls, and in particular to listening to the voices of those women across the country. The Labour Government have indicated periodically that they agree with that, but will they commit to taking action—and, if so, when?'

Nia Griffith:

'The Government are committed to ensuring that there is guidance in place that gives service providers assurance about the rights afforded by the Act and how to lawfully apply single-sex exceptions. We will be setting out our next steps on that work in due course.'

Nia Griffiths:

'We will be considering the Commission’s proposals on its updated code of practice for services, public functions and associations, and Ministers will make a decision whether to approve them after the final draft of the code has been submitted. The previous Government put out a call for input on single-sex spaces guidance, and over 400 policy and guidance documents that fitted the response criteria were submitted. After reviewing these examples, it was found that the vast majority did not wrongly state or suggest that people have a legal right to access single-sex spaces and services according to their self-identified gender. In fact, only about 10% of the examples submitted seemed to have misinterpreted the Equality Act’s single-sex spaces provisions in some way.

As the independent regulator of the Equality Act, the EHRC is the appropriate body to ensure that this question is looked into in more detail, and it has the ability to follow up directly with organisations if necessary. We are in the process of sharing all the submissions that met the criteria of the previous Government’s call for input on single-sex spaces guidance so that the EHRC can review them. Although guidance does exist, including from the EHRC, the result of this call for input suggests that there is further work to do to ensure everyone has clarity about how the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act operate. Moving forward, we will explore the best ways in which we can give providers assurance about the rights afforded by the Act and how they can lawfully apply its single-sex exceptions.'

I don't see anything in opposition at all.

Thank you for posting. With an essay deadline imminent this will be an interesting read for the weekend.

How did this debate happen?

Just wondering seems so strange to just appear?!

Have read the written report of the discussion and seemed either the TWAW boycotted it, it felt it politic not to say anything.

Nia Griffith

“We know that single-sex services are important to people for many different reasons. For example, single-sex services can provide safety and comfort, especially for those who have previously had negative experiences using mixed-sex services. Everyone should be able to access specialist services and everyday facilities that meet their needs while protecting their privacy, dignity and safety. However, as outlined by various Ministers in this Government, there will be circumstances where certain groups need to be excluded from single-sex services and facilities to ensure the best outcomes for users—safety, dignity, fairness and privacy, to name a few.”

Those “certain groups” being members of the opposite sex. Or they’re not single sex services, are they.

Why has the The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales taken on the role of putting forward the Labour (Government) position. With all the Ministers for Women couldn't one of them turned up?!

Does the Minister accept that in recent years being respectful of others’ views has meant silencing those who have gender critical beliefs? That continues to be the case, although we see some signs of the tide turning. Does she agree that it is up to this Labour Government to ensure that those views are genuinely respected, rather than silencing those with gender critical views?

Dame Nia Griffith
That is exactly what I have been explaining with regards to the Equality Act and respect for all established views, including gender critical views. We want to make sure that everybody is treated with dignity and respect; that is why it is important that we uphold the Equality Act and provide everybody with the reassurance that it protects them against unlawful discrimination and harassment.

It is perhaps important to dwell for a moment on what is considered harassment under the Equality Act. Free speech is protected when it is lawful, but harassment is behaviour that the law specifically defines as unlawful in certain situations, such as the workplace. Harassment is not simply a case of taking offence; there is a seriousness threshold, and conduct that is trivial or causes minor offence will not be sufficiently serious to meet the definition of harassment. Harassment is a serious matter, involving being subjected to unwanted conduct of various types, as set out in the Equality Act, which

“has the purpose or effect”

of violating the employee’s dignity or of

“creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”

for the employee.

Those who seek to harass people at work will not be tolerated, hence our provisions in the Employment Rights Bill to keep workers safe from harassment.

Establishing those parameters is essential for maintaining the healthy and respectful standards of discussion that I just mentioned. It is also important to highlight that these discussions affect real people, their communities, their careers and their families. Therefore, as we exercise our freedom of expression, let us do so with humanity. We hold our beliefs everywhere we go, which often means that we express them in different places, including at work. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has produced guidance on belief as a protected characteristic, and we would expect employers to refer to that before taking action in a given case.

We know that single-sex services are important to people for many different reasons. For example, single-sex services can provide safety and comfort, especially for those who have previously had negative experiences using mixed-sex services. Everyone should be able to access specialist services and everyday facilities that meet their needs while protecting their privacy, dignity and safety. However, as outlined by various Ministers in this Government, there will be circumstances where certain groups need to be excluded from single-sex services and facilities to ensure the best outcomes for users—safety, dignity, fairness and privacy, to name a few.

That is why we are proud to uphold the Equality Act, which already gives providers the flexibility to deliver single-sex services exclusively for those of the same biological sex where that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Rebecca Smith
The Minister will be aware that the last Conservative manifesto committed to reforming the Equality Act to protect single-sex spaces and services for women and girls, and in particular to listening to the voices of those women across the country. The Labour Government have indicated periodically that they agree with that, but will they commit to taking action—and, if so, when?

Dame Nia Griffith
I think the point the hon. Lady is making is that there needs to be some clarification on guidance. She will be well aware that the last Government put out a call for evidence, asking people to provide examples of how the Equality Act is being interpreted. The Act sets out that providers have the right to restrict the use of services, including toilets and women’s refuges, on the basis of sex and gender reassignment in circumstances where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

We are proud of the Equality Act and the rights and protections it affords women. We will continue to support the use of its single-sex exceptions by providers. It is vital that service providers understand the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act and feel confident using them. The Government are committed to ensuring that there is guidance in place that gives service providers assurance about the rights afforded by the Act and how to lawfully apply single-sex exceptions. We will be setting out our next steps on that work in due course.

As hon. Members will know, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has published guidance on separate and single-sex services. It has recently concluded its consultation on its draft updated code of practice for services, public functions and associations.

ie the Tories found that only 10% of Single Sex services were misrepresented therefore there isn't a problem and Labour's brilliant ammendment of the EA to incorporate the GRA is still fit for purpose.

Hmmm. The NHS is rather the elephant in the room isn't it with the wholesale eradication of women's language and single sex spaces ?

As hon. Members will know, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has published guidance on separate and single-sex services. It has recently concluded its consultation on its draft updated code of practice for services, public functions and associations.

The Commission and other bodies have a very responsible position to interpret and ensure that, where there are potential conflicts between the different protected characteristics, those are dealt with in a sympathetic and fair manner.

We will be considering the Commission’s proposals on its updated code of practice for services, public functions and associations, and Ministers will make a decision whether to approve them after the final draft of the code has been submitted. The previous Government put out a call for input on single-sex spaces guidance, and over 400 policy and guidance documents that fitted the response criteria were submitted. After reviewing these examples, it was found that the vast majority did not wrongly state or suggest that people have a legal right to access single-sex spaces and services according to their self-identified gender. In fact, only about 10% of the examples submitted seemed to have misinterpreted the Equality Act’s single-sex spaces provisions in some way.

As the independent regulator of the Equality Act, the EHRC is the appropriate body to ensure that this question is looked into in more detail, and it has the ability to follow up directly with organisations if necessary. We are in the process of sharing all the submissions that met the criteria of the previous Government’s call for input on single-sex spaces guidance so that the EHRC can review them. Although guidance does exist, including from the EHRC, the result of this call for input suggests that there is further work to do to ensure everyone has clarity about how the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act operate. Moving forward, we will explore the best ways in which we can give providers assurance about the rights afforded by the Act and how they can lawfully apply its single-sex exceptions.

I haven't looked it up by my memory of this is the EHRC said they first of all didn't believe the Labour Government had handed over all the examples the Tory Party had gathered indicating misinterpretation of the SSE.

And then added that the wording of the EA should be clarified as it would make everything simpler.

Can understand what the point of this "debate" was.

(Off topic but just a reminder that the Government have given a written response to the petition to repeal the GRA because 10,000 have signed. If it gets up to 100,000 there will have to be a debate. Although not really off topic as it is the imposition of the GRA that has created both "legal women" and biological women with the outcome that only in a minority of occasions are biological women given actual rights.)

The NHS is rather the elephant in the room isn't it with the wholesale eradication of women's language and single sex spaces ?

Yes and no, because long before the rise of TRA demands the NHS was allowed for budgetry reasons not have to provide single sex services.

Dont forget the word "proportionate".

No other protected characteristic has to provide evidence that what they are asking for in response to actual lived experience, is proporationate.

“Harassment is a serious matter, involving being subjected to unwanted conduct of various types, as set out in the Equality Act, which
“has the purpose or effect”
of violating the employee’s dignity or of
“creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”
for the employee.”

The obvious complication here is that, correctly applying sex based pronouns to a person who claims they are trans would obviously be claimed to fulfill these criteria

BUT forcing me to use false pronouns would do the same for me. I would find that incredibly hostile and degrading.

Another clear clash of rights that needs to be resolved. Or would the above quote be modified if I knew the mentioned content in the EA that sets out the “unwanted conduct of various types”?

Interesting thread though and thanks for the links.

“Why has the The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales taken on the role of putting forward the Labour (Government) position. With all the Ministers for Women couldn't one of them turned up?!”

Because she is also Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Equalities) in DfE, as well as in the Wales Office. @IwantToRetire Focused on LGBT policy rather than women though.

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/dame-nia-griffith

only about 10% of the examples submitted seemed to have misinterpreted the Equality Act’s single-sex spaces provisions in some way.

A 10% error rate is quite a lot, really, for something ministers so often claim is 'completely clear'. Especially when 1 of that 10% is a compulsory annual training module for NHS staff. And particularly when you consider that the NHS is the 7th largest employer in the world, and is misinforming around 1.4 million employees.

So the 2 or is it now 3 Ministers for Women couldn't be bothered to turn up even though the debate was about women.

Or more likely given how childishly spiteful Labour is, a deliberate insult to Rosie Duffield. ie implying she isn't worth taking notice of.

The really are such low lives.

only about 10% of the examples submitted seemed to have misinterpreted the Equality Act’s single-sex spaces provisions in some way.

And the EHRC doesn't believe them. Thinks that Labour have "managed" the results and suspect they would know informally from when Badenoch was in power.

I was going to post the same point, @NoBinturongsHereMate.

That ‘only 10%’ quantum includes an Exocet of a policy missile that pretty much affects 100% of the population, in a way that particularly disadvantages women.

Even if it were true, "only 10%" is just another version of the "only a few incidents, you can only complain when the number of problems reaches N+1" nonsense.