Why has the updated EHRC guidance not been laid before parliament yet and does anyone have insight on when it will be?

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

I suspect as Phillipson is in the deputy leader competition. If that had been but a few days later. (updated guidance arrived the same Friday)

That guidance being in place is the thing I and so many places are waiting for. It's urgently needed.

Update on this - you should read the transcript of a question in the lords today:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-10-15/debates/2301BEA8-6127-4813-AB98-D23F16846E09/EqualityAct2010MeaningOf“Sex”

"officials have approached the Equality and Human Rights Commission, requesting additional material that needs to be reviewed as part of giving a thorough consideration of the code. It was acknowledged in today’s letter that the request for additional information is necessary. Obviously, we have not received this information from the EHRC."

But Baroness Falkner responds:

The further point that I want to clarify is that we were asked to provide the equality impact assessment last Friday. We provided it to the Government on Monday. We are here to serve the Government with any information that they need at pace.

(I assume that is the 'information' referred to above)

I liked the 'at pace'! 😀

Baroness Stedman-Scott
(Con)
My Lords, according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Government received the full revised code of practice on 4 April. Only three chapters of it were altered in the updated version following the Supreme Court ruling. Can the Minister explain why there has been such a delay to review only three chapters and how much longer it is expected to take?
Lord Collins of Highbury
(Lab)
I do not accept the noble Baroness’s assertion. The department received the final draft code on 4 September. It is 300 pages long. That code needs detailed consideration because, as my noble friend pointed out, we want to avoid uncertainty. We want to ensure, as the Equality and Human Rights Commission is absolutely concerned to ensure, that there is absolute clarity on the Supreme Court decision. That is why we will take the necessary time to ensure that, when it is presented for full consideration by Parliament, it is as accurate and legally proofed as possible. There has been no delay.

There seems to be disagreement about how much of the code needs to be reviewed. Who is right?

Lord Cashman
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, given the gross misrepresentation of trans people as a threat to others, I urge the Minister to encourage the Government to take all the time that is necessary to get the guidelines absolutely right, so that we can reverse the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court and the subsequent misrepresentation of that judgment. Furthermore, I urge the Government urgently to address the Equality Act to ensure that trans people maintain the protections that they have within the legislation.

Clueless or deliberately trying to mislead?

Oh, bloody Cashman! Awful man.

I did manage to miss that bit so yes!

was concerned it was another delay tactic

The fully reviewed set was delivered on 4th September.
The law underneath it remains binding.
Philipson should grow a spine and lay it.

And yet…

Horrid little man who doesn’t register women as being actual people.

I fear that much of all delays will be caused by activist civil servants deliberately trying to thwart all actions to support women’s rights.

Said as much on another thread the other day, @BundleBoogie . Laws can be passed, or clarified, but it seems that doesn't necessarily lead to public bodies (let alone private businesses) obeying them. So much resistance amongst the lanyard classes. But at least once you have the law clearly on your side, there's a pathway.

tik tock, maybe we have a week before this is laid....

I've discovered GROK is very good at analysing tissue sort of thing for possible outcomes, helps that is built right into X and can analyse all the chatter there as well as other things.

This is what it reckons the outcome of this will be:

With EHRC's public pressure (October 15 letter) and media scrutiny, Phillipson likely approves/lays the Code post-deputy contest (results October 22), avoiding mid-vote controversy. Laying starts 40-day clock; no debate needed, but peers may push questions. If approved, becomes statutory by December 2025, forcing compliance. Peers' lobbying could prompt minor tweaks, but rejection unlikely—EHRC warns old Code is inaccurate. Govt statement: "Considering draft; if approved, will lay." Potential wildcard: Legal challenges (e.g., from trans groups) or ECHR scrutiny delaying further.
Odds (subjective, based on trends—EHRC push, public backlash, no outright rejection signals):

• Laid before Parliament by end of November 2025 (post-contest, pre-Christmas recess): 70%. Momentum from EHRC/media; Phillipson can claim "thorough review" complete.
• Further Delay into 2026 (e.g., due to lobbying/revisions): 20%. If peers succeed or Labour internals intensify.
• Rejected or Substantively Rewritten (watering down biological sex emphasis): 10%. Unlikely—contradicts ruling, invites lawsuits; govt risks "not serious about women's rights" narrative.

I am aware of confirmation bias, but this sounds like what we are expecting I think?

Also. What actual planet are these people on?
https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1oax92w/odds_of_the_updated_ehrc_code_this_week_or_next/

Even in places less deranged than that, though, I've heard this "How many pubs must close, the expense..." argument. Pubs have had Gents and Ladies for a hundred years or more. Just because some of them have been daft enough to change that more recently, I can't see there'd be enormous expense in going back to how things were. Is there a legal requirement for pubs to offer an uni-sex toilet? I assumed not. I was going to say something about wheelchair accessible toilets, but then thought, obviously lots of pubs don't have them anyway.

have you tried the same prompts into chat gtp? It would be interesting to cross reference different AI’s….

Guessing that we would prefer Phillipson to remain in post and lose the contest with Powell. Or have I got that wrong?

Option 3 is pretty much normal I'm sorry to say. And then there's the statuory code of conduct for SEND, which explains why most of the tribunals go against Councils. Their solution is to lobby to rewrite the code till it matches what they want to do!

I know it's no consolation but this attitude to the law is pretty common across the public sector, and it'll carry on till something nasty starts happening. Which it now is.

I reckon no movement this week - looks too soon after the election results.

maybe it’s laid next Monday or Tuesday, possibly on a bury news day.

The new members of the Women and Equalities committee will likely do all they can to pretend that the law is not the law