EHRC has now sent its new guidance to ministers

[Charabanc]

Here we go...

ETA it's not "guidance" any more, it's the new Code

Equality law regulator submits updated code of practice to Minister for Women and Equalities

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, Chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said:

“Over the past two years the EHRC has undertaken a major project to update the entire statutory code of practice, which was published in 2011, to reflect over ten years of new legislation. Following the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers in April, some additional sections required further revision.

“We have now submitted an updated draft of the code to the Minister for Women and Equalities. The government is responsible for laying it before Parliament. Once Parliament has considered its content, I look forward to the EHRC publishing this guidance, fulfilling our statutory role to provide clear information that protects everyone's rights under the Equality Act 2010.

“We have been clear that service providers, associations and public functions should not wait for the code of practice to be published to make any changes needed to comply with the law. As duty-bearers they must assure themselves of their legal responsibilities in their own specific circumstances and seek independent legal advice where necessary.”

Following ministerial approval, the UK Government must lay the draft code before Parliament for 40 days before it can be brought into force.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/equality-law-regulator-submits-updated-code-practice-minister-women-and-equalities

https://www.thetimes.com/article/e94f25d8-6221-4f69-8834-f77ab5dd280e?shareToken=7a2fc746027a097c606a0c924b22bad3

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1963849820604440707?t=5VP4Xm7RzIXNl0a-H7RV_g&s=19

Thanks for the heads up.

I look forward to seeing it.

Baroness Faulkner was on radio 4 today programme - around 7.51 am onwards for 5 minutes or so

The fight against it is frustrating…

• organisations saying they need to wait - no the law has been law for years, the interim guidance is substantially the same - get on with it
• pro trans organisations saying debate is needed - no this isn’t an area for debate, this is not something new being invented it is simply giving examples to help non lawyers understand the law - you get the same information from reading the underlying law, it is not open to stonewall -esque interpretations…

it will be good to see it finally published especially if as suggested it warns that organisations may be sued for non compliance… a raft of high profile legal cases and then a lot of letters before action should start to encourage compliance!

the frustration is in how often though the EHRC has warned people not to delay but to get on with compliance - who is going to hold accountable all those people making excuses about delaying when all they do is extend what is fundamentally wrong?

Topless protests incoming...

Forty days. So sometime in October I guess it is time for big party.

What will be their next excuse for not implementing it? I guess something like ‘it is subject to potential legal action’?

"We're taking it to the ECtHJ" 🙄

It's crazy that even people who work for us can say "I don't fancy obeying the law just yet"

The correct response to that should be "here's a cardboard box to clear your desk" no need to debate the law with them.

@akkakk “organisations saying they need to wait - no the law has been law for years, the interim guidance is substantially the same - get on with it”

Absolutely this. where I work, I’m waiting patiently but it’s so annoying to see statements like this.

Then they will say they are waiting for the outcome of the court cases the likes of The Good Law Project are trying to bring about.

The goal posts always move. Once we used biological sex, men in dresses start saying they are biological females.

BUT this guidance will be actually binding and has specific direct examples init, unlike the Equality Act, so will be very very hard for orgs to dodge, especially if we hold their feet to the fire which we must continue to do

Any schools, gyms, shopping centres, clubs, anything, we must keep pushing with an air of people who safeguard and uphold the law.

Thanks for the heads up. I'm strapping myself in for a bumpy ride.

The good baroness said on Today that orgs should simply ask their lawyers if they were unsure. A boring, non-activist firm can explain how they are liable to face discrimination claims if they don’t follow the Act. Could be a slam dunk and nice little earner for no-win no-fee lawyers

What is meant by ‘laying the guidance before Parliament for 40 days’? I can see a firey debate ensuing in Parliament. What happens if the minister approves the guidance but Parliament doesn’t?

What is meant by ‘laying the guidance before Parliament for 40 days’?

I think they will be following this process. Which means a vote but usually no debate.

guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/articles/ovuiEncc/what-happens-to-statutory-instruments-under-the-affirmative-procedure

It’s a technical term, it sits there. No debate in this case. If parliament wants to change it then they need to put forward a new bill.
And ECHR recognises UK Parliament as a competent authority if you look back at why and how the GRA was created, you can see how it intervenes and what happens. If UK had had same sex marriage, then v possible that GRA wouldn’t have come about.
IANAL but looking back it’s arguable that the Lords and titles passing through the make line was a huge obstacle that the GRA fudged its way round. I think now the much less empowered heredities would find primogeniture would be enacted by Parliament

The big problem of course is that women may have to sue every org that ignores the law. This is infuriating.

The law already is binding.

Yes indeed. However the previous interim guidance, April, was not actually binding. This one will be. The law, of course, was always binding, but it lacked specific examples of what to do.

I don't think there is even a vote. it's 40 days and then it's in

It’s under the “negative procedure”

• That means the Code is automatically approved after 40 sitting days unless either House passes a motion to annul it.
• By default, no debate or vote happens. An MP or Peer has to actively table a “prayer motion” (early day motion to annul).
• These are rarely taken up unless there’s significant cross-party appetite

They have bigger things to worry about than this.

Ah, thanks - that's better if it's the negative version.

What I like about this (if the article is accurate) is it explains that

1. women could sue for harassment or indirect discrimination if men are allowed into women's single sex spaces or there is no single sex provision
2. gender neutral provision may be considered but is not mandatory

The harassment and indirect discrimination warnings are particularly welcome. No criminal act has to take place. Just putting men in the same space is enough to get providers into trouble.

ETA: And gender neutral is not the answer or "safe" compromise.

At least three MPs (I forgot which ones, but I've seen their letters on Bsky) have written to Baroness Philipson asking to debate/have a vote on the guidance. But it doesn't seem like there's a way for that to happen by default?