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

No, the reshuffle was always planned. The odd thing is that Keir planned it for a Friday. Which is cowardly, because MPs are at their constituencies on a Friday. So he doesn't have to do it face to face...

Was it really oh ok - in that case I cannot imagine government is so failing to be joined up that the guidance was sent tomPhillipson only for her to move that day…?

One would hope. I don't think she'll be moved/ousted, but who knows with this lot.

It is insane that I live in a time where the idea that access to single sex spaces depends on one's sex is controversial. Insane.

On Reddit trans uk there have been quite a few posts recently where people identifying as the opposite sex have been told to use the correct toilet or a third space by their workplace. Cue lots of impotent rage.

If the burden is on service providers to make it clear that SS spaces are for people of one sex, and they comply in word but not deed, where does that leave female service users, does anyone know?

Can a service provider say, however disingenuously, that they thought all the people going into e.g. the women's changing room were women? Does that leave a man who goes in personally liable (guilty of voyeurism/flashing) or does the service provider have any responsibility to stop men going in?

I'm wondering about the sticky issue of 'passing' and what would happen in practice if the service provider wasn't actually on board in a world where so many people are very dedicated to pretending they can't tell someone's sex?

I assume this won't be such an issue with male employees, but in places where employees are dealing with the general public?

If the burden is on service providers to make it clear that SS spaces are for people of one sex, and they comply in word but not deed, where does that leave female service users, does anyone know?

Successfully suing the service provider for sexual harassment and discrimination.

Looking at it it really was not planned - https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-keir-starmer-forced-into-sweeping-reshuffle-angela-rayner-deputy-quits/

I am prepared to be proved wrong! As you say, and as I have been listening to this afternoon, this does seem to have been unplanned for today.

But I think that they were talking about all these moves before. They don't come from nowhere. You don't shunt your two top ministers of state around with no thoughts beforehand.

Well I reckon Starmer knew on Monday she was off! So definitely some planning there!

Wes Streeting is staying in post, very good news on the blokes in the ladies saga for the NHS.

Bridget stays :D
https://x.com/bphillipsonMP/status/1964005972013138325

"Delighted to remain in post as Education Secretary and Minister for Women & Equalities in this Labour government.

Now, we redouble our efforts to break the unfair link between background and success by giving children growing up in our country the best start in life."

Happy times!

OMG the TRAs must be fewmin. Bridget and Wes staying in office!

Sorry haven't read thread so this point may have been made, but:

The EHRC isn't telling the Government single sex facilites should be based on sex.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it should be!

The EHRC has to illustrate who this legal instruction should be carried out.

We dont know what it says.

We many not like it.

The Government may not like it.

I am not sure if Phillipson can tell the EHRC to change it.

And if they do whether it will make a difference that very soon Baroness Falkner will be gone and it will be down to Mary-Ann Stephenson.

When aren’t they!

Even more fuming Shabana Mahmood now is Home Secretary and she is a long time supporter of Labour Women's Declaration.

It’s the same as the April one with additional examples and making the whole thing water tight. The fundamentals aren’t changing. They cant. Phillipson wont commit suicide by Farage, so she will nod it through, we wait 40 days, that’s it, binding.

It's also insane that figuring out what sex other people are, or even what sex you are yourself, is apparently "complicated".

The EHRC isn't telling the Government single sex facilites should be based on sex.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it should be!

No, the Supreme Court has ruled that it MUST be.

Must and should are legally very different.

Have you seen it?

If you say so. I think the ordinary person in the street would understand.

"We dont know what it says.

We many not like it."

Just to add to the reply from @SingleSexSpacesInSchools , it is not the role of the EHRC to determine the law or the interpret the Equality Act.

The EHRC’s role is to provide guidance to assist people to understand and comply with their rights and obligations under the Act.

Regardless of what the guidance says, it is entirely down to, as you say, what the law says and what the Supreme Court has said that the law means.

There are an awful lot who claim not to understand the Supreme Court ruling. But if it said ‘should’ then it would have been leapt on. As anyone who has had to argue education provision for their child, or whether the LA provide transport to school, knows, ‘should’ is just a recommendation they don’t have to follow. ‘Must’ is mandatory. TRAs would never have missed ‘should’ had the SC said that.

I have not. But everyone involved has said there are no substantive changes. Men are not suddenly allowed in the ladies for example.

Nobody thinks that!

Its just going to be interesting to see how the EHRC allows for those with a GRC, and does not (we hope) just think toilets meant for people with disabilities just get co-opted into if you are not sure use them!