EHRC Code of Practise consultation

[ArabellaScott]

'On 25 April, we announced that we would undertake a public consultation on updates made to our statutory Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations, following the Supreme Court’s judgment in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers.

In light of the level of public interest, as well as representations from stakeholders in Parliament and civil society, the consultation period has been extended.

The following arrangements have now been confirmed:

The consultation will aim to launch 19 May and close on 30 June 2025.

The consultation will focus on sections of the Code of Practice that required updating following the Supreme Court’s judgment. A draft of the full Code of Practice was consulted on between October 2024 and January 2025.

The consultation will seek views on whether these updates clearly articulate the practical implications of the judgment and enable those who will use the Code to understand, and comply with, the Equality Act 2010. The Supreme Court made the legal position on the definition of sex clear, so we are not seeking views on those legal aspects.

While the consultation is running, we will hold Q&A sessions with stakeholders representing affected protected characteristic groups. These meetings aim to answer questions on our understanding of the Supreme Court’s judgment, the consultation process, where views are being sought and what can and cannot be changed in the draft Code of Practice. Participants will still need to submit a consultation response. We will also meet with governments from across Britain and hold informative briefings for Parliamentarians.

We will review responses received as part of the consultation and make necessary amendments to the Code of Practice. It will then be submitted to the Minister for Women and Equalities for approval and laying in Parliament.

Further information on the consultation and how it can be completed will follow when it launches.'

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/update-arrangements-code-practice-consultation

Thanks.

we will hold Q&A sessions with stakeholders representing affected protected characteristic groups

Suspect it will be necessary to keep an eye on who gets to be invitied to give views and who doesn't.

But for all those who keep starting threads about the think the EHRC is somehow the enemy, worth remember that prior to the Supreme Court ruling they had suggested that the GRA should be disapplied from the EA.

Far more radical that just confirming the meaning of the word sex.

The inclusion of the GRA in the EA was a deliberate act of social engineering that Labour and their TRA supporters were adamant should be included. ie as the Trojan horse towards self id.

A health condition that is validated by a certificate has nothing in common with the other protected characteristics the EA is based on.

(sorry this is a bit of a derail, as the consultation will be looking at how the Supreme Court ruling should be put in practice. Although presumably those with a GRC may well be asking is it worth the paper it is written on, or digital entry on an online registry.)

Well top and bottom of it is, that a GRC is not worth the paper it is written on, and the GRA, as i am sure as i have said will just wither on the vine

as i am sure as i have said will just wither on the vine

I very much doubt the TRAs will ever let that happen, and will make sure the Handmaids in the Labour Party make sure of it.

Worse still, if it was just to become a discussion about those with a GRC, all those who go on about the old fashioned orginal "transexual" will come out in their droves and say they have been let down by the Government and are taking the blame for all the loud mouth woke multiple gender advocates.

Isn't this just priceless.

The Guardian making out they have got a scoop, showing how the EHRC is being duplicitous and anti trans. Only the Guardian could make itself look so silly.

Exclusive: Six-week deliberation asked for by Commons committee expected to be granted after internal backlash

Shock horror send for the smelling salts.

Not realising it has been released as an official statement.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/14/uk-equality-watchdog-to-extend-gender-guidance-consultation-say-insiders

Bumping again because of more threads on toilets!

Stupidity of Good Law Project.

And rather dubious briefing from House of Commons Library for MPs.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5335214-house-of-commons-briefing-on-the-implications-of-the-supreme-court-ruling

I think my comment above should not have been on this thread!

But am posting as I thought today was the day the consultation opened but cant find in on EHRC web site.

Is it there and I am just not seeing it?

Thanks for anyone who can track it down.

Wondering if I should be responding yet, says 19th

In the just finished debate on self id, it says lots of people have already responded.

I suspect though that they will be setting out the way they want to responses to be sent because if it is just free form essays they will never be able to make use of it.

Although all too often when there is a standard form it isn't always possible to says everything you want to say.

So I'm going to wait to see the method they are going to use.

Searched the EHRC website - nothing which looks like a consultation and no update about start date.

Nothing on the govt consultation website yet either.

I’d encourage people to sign up for the EHRC email list, as they’ll likely email when it’s open (as they did with the interim update and the consultation update).

According to Baroness Cash in the HoL today, the consultation is still due to launch tonight or first thing tomorrow.

Its on the web site now

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-services-public-functions-and-associations

Has anyone had a look.

I am wondering what the difference is between the survey for individuals and legal professionals (?!) and the one for organisations.

Do you think they will give more weight to organisations?

There’s a new thread here.

Is that useful rather than continuing one that already exists?!!!

I didn’t start the other thread - I just thought people might be interested.

Sorry - didn't mean to seem like i was criticising you, but FWR lately seems to have gone into a whirlwind of not just duplicate, but triplicate, or even more threads.

Such as shame, as so easy to just the most recent option on the listing to see if there is a thread.

But thanks for letting other know.

With any luck by tomorrow morning there will be another one!

I should have checked! A 3rd one has been created.

Would have thought MNHQ forum software would have an option that gently hinted to someone that their thread title suggested there may already been another one.

No worries at all!

I agree it can be frustrating to have duplicate threads flying around, especially when things get busy on here.

Have seen that Sex Matters have published their guidelines on completing this, and talk about comments that can be cut and paste.

Not saying it is a fact this time, but worth remembering that in theconsultation on the GRA and self id, many of the pro self id responses were disregarded as being not genuine individual ones.

Not sure this will be the same here, but as there are still internal struggles within the EHRC would be wary at offering any chance of replies being dumped.

Not saying dont use the Sex Matters guidelines but if hundreds appear to be identical word for word it could create issues.

Best to be safe than sorry.

IMO!

Imagine though - "there are already one million threads titled 'another MIL one', are you sure?"

At one point long ago I used to deal with Government consultations. The template write ins caused rolled eyes and went in the bin without being read. We would count them (so, X hundred or thousand people used the template produced by Y…) but didn’t give them great weight as a) all they proved was one lobbying organisation was well organised, and b) those who sent template responses clearly didn’t care enough about the issue to put it in their own words. Since then, whenever I’ve responded to a consultation I’ve used templates only as a starting point and been careful to put the argument in my own words.

Thanks for posting this.

I could find a source to quote but do remember being warned from early consultations.

So glad you have confirmed, from actual experience.

I was thinking of contacting Sex Matters, but the last time I emailed them they replied weeks later saying they couldn't respond to individuals!

But also didn't want to post on say facebook or X (which I am not on) as you never know what TRAs will pounce on.