EHRC urge government to lay the updated statutory guidance before parliament

[IDareSay]

"Tomorrow marks 6 months since the Supreme Court FWS ruling. We’ve written to Bridget Phillipson asking govt to revoke the 2011 services code and lay our updated version to make it statutory. It accurately reflects the law and updated guidance is urgently needed"

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/ehrc-urges-government-ensure-accurate-statutory-guidance-equality-act-available?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Orlo

Baroness Ludford is just about to ask a question in the Lords about this; live on Parliament TV.

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a9dbcc8c-20b4-4413-93a2-305467e8570e

If anyone wants to watch that 10 minute clip, it starts at 15.38 with Baroness Ludford.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-10-15/debates/2301BEA8-6127-4813-AB98-D23F16846E09/EqualityAct2010MeaningOf%E2%80%9CSex%E2%80%9D

Therefore, I would just like to clarify for the House, because I know the Minister would not wish to mislead the House, that the time period needed for the code to be laid in Parliament is not 40 sitting days: it is 40 calendar days under Section 15 of the Equality Act

That's a useful distinction

EHRC interim guidance has apparently been removed from website - related?

GLP seems to think the rapture has arrived.

Ooh! I thought it was 40 sitting days.

Anyway, Bridget is obviously hoping to kick it into the post-deputy leader election grass.

I think we should all be reading the detailed transcript before we leap to that conclusion..

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

Thanks for the link. The relevant answers, at the end:

Baroness Falkner of Margravine
(CB)

My Lords, I have enormous respect for the Minister, who has given very fulsome answers today. He referred to me. Therefore, I would just like to clarify for the House, because I know the Minister would not wish to mislead the House, that the time period needed for the code to be laid in Parliament is not 40 sitting days: it is 40 calendar days under Section 15 of the Equality Act. 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.

Lord Collins of Highbury
(Lab)

As the noble Baroness knows, I have huge respect for her and the responsibility she has. It is a very serious responsibility. From her letter to the Secretary of State today and the debate we have had this afternoon, it is clear that we have to consider this matter seriously and take into account all possible risks and issues to ensure that we have a legally proofed code that is understood by everyone in respect of their responsibilities under the Equality Act. In respect of the 40 days, I must admit that my briefing does say 40 sitting days—but I am prepared to be corrected and I thank the noble Baroness.

I hope we get to see that EQI

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/1978459025667658143?

Sad times

It's important to note that what was removed was the interim update (what the GLP incorrectly calls interim guidance), not the actual interim guidance. The interim update is non-statutory, and was provided at the request of some in parliament for an immediate response to the SC ruling. The interim guidance is statutory and provided directly due to the SC ruling and replaces previous issued guidance.

Removing the interim update is due to the fact that interim guidance is now available to MPs. Although the GLP claims that it's due to the pressure applied by their lawsuit. And it is plausible that's an additional factor given that it's quite possible that if the laying of the new interim guidance was not controversial the update would have stayed up until the new guidance came into effect.

It's important to keep these things clear as the GLP is intentionally trying to confuse them as part of its activist strategy. Hopefully others will correct or amend the above if I've misstated or omitted anything.

Genuinely useful summary from the other side:

https://iandunt.substack.com/p/frightened-and-desperate-ehrc-anti

Also see comments section.

"anti trans campaign" 🙄

Thanks for the link, Ian Dunt being his usual self I see.

This is drivel though. Start to finish drivel.

Who is Ian Dunt? I think to myself.

Google.

'Started his career on Pink News...'

Ah. No further questions, m'lud.

We don’t know why the comms between government and the EHRC went dead.

He's managed to write that very long article without once mentioning that Bridget Philipson is running to be Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. She made this announcement four days after receiving the draft Code 🙄

It would be more useful if it were accurate.

Still, we get a mention in the comments from Aida, a busy TIM who fancies himself as a legal expert:

Aida Paul
2h
You claim legal literacy, and yet brought up argument that was already ruled on in Goodwin vs UK 2002, where UK got it's ass handed to it, for trying to treat trans rights as zero sum game you highlight with: "Nobody is trying to make trans people’s lives worse but this is a balancing of rights, and it turns out women have them too. Who knew?!"
This is literally what goodwin said is not ok.
But then I actually studied law, read the cases, and judgment, you repeat mumsnet soundbites.

😆

ETA: He's responding to Charles Arthur, who always speaks sense.

And Rayner resigned the day the code arrived.

None of which Ian bothers to note 🙄 Doesn't fit his well-trodden agenda.

Thanks for the paragraph. So ‘Aida’ claims that the Goodwin judgement says that ‘women having rights and the resultant need for balancing of rights’ is not ok?

So I guess the law needs to be updated to remove the effect of Goodwin on the grounds that women ARE entitled to rights and there being a need to balance rights?

Dunt misrepresents everything and may be deluded as to the extent that public opinion is on his side. But, taken together with the comments, it's a useful window into TRA thinking, and includes most of the current goings-on (omission of the deputy leadership contest notwithstanding).

There are factions trying to delay, then water down, the code, and HMG may very well be appeasing them, for political reasons, or just to delay - for as long as possible - any sort of showdown.

Write to your MP: the government must stand up for women’s rights
https://sex-matters.org/write-to-your-mp-the-government-must-stand-up-for-womens-rights/

Sex Matters template letter for anyone interested

I written to my MP. I'll be interested to see his reply.

Looks like the EHRC is getting antsy about the govt delaying its guidance (“we gave it to them 7 weeks ago”) and businesses not following the law.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/28/ehrc-guidance-will-help-businesses-comply-with-the-law-on-sex-and-gender