@Tandora They have clarified that workplaces don’t need to provide single sex toilets, if they provide private toilets with a lockable door . Which has indeed always been the law.
Since this is the topic of the thread, it's worth pointing out emphatically that this is not true. In fact the GLP misunderstood the interim update, intentionally or through neglect.
In the interim update document are found the following two statements:
-
"In workplaces, it is compulsory to provide sufficient single-sex toilets, as well as sufficient single-sex changing and washing facilities where these facilities are needed."
and
- "where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men"
The second statement is one of a list of statements that elaborates on the first. The meaning is clear: single-sex toilets are compulsory, one-person-at-a-time lockable rooms satisfy that requirement.
The EHRC's response gives that observation precise legal form:
Above the bullet points, the summary observation is made that “in workplaces, it is compulsory to provide sufficient single-sex toilets, as well as sufficient single-sex changing and washing facilities where these facilities are needed” (bold in original). While your concern relates to toilets, this observation concerned changing and washing facilities as well. This falls to be read with the last of the bullet points which states that “where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men”
The sufficiency of the interim update in this respect is confirmed by the fact that there was no need to update the document as a result of the the GLP's letter. The fact that the GLP is trying to declare this as a victory is a shameful misrepresentation of their action and the results it achieved, apparently playing on the partisan driven credulity of its supporters. Though, in the spirit of comity, that's disposition I wouldn't attribute to any of the posters on this thread.