EHRC guidance might be delayed for over a year

[OhBuggerandArse]

Ministers really can't cope with acknowledging the law, can they?

https://www.thetimes.com/article/d7cd9e2f-2635-409d-a624-a833611a09fc?shareToken=f3f89ea86fb5c264c18866395c93194d

I hope this is just a flag they're sending up to evaluate how much pushback there might be - let's make sure that the pushback is noisy, articulate and effective.

Hopefully all of the cases currently going through ETs will make it clear to employers that it is the law they need to follow and that they cannot afford to wait for guidance.

If businesses didn’t want to incur costs they should have obeyed the law for the last 15 years. Many have, in fact, managed to do this perfectly well by retaining single sex facilities and if necessary converting an appropriately proportioned subset or adding mixed facilities. Those that haven’t - well maybe they need to view any costs they may incur as a penalty for having been breaking the law for so long. I don’t think the law was ever obscure or unclear to those who gave a shit about women’s rights, those who did any sort of balanced impact assessments.

Actually not that great for businesses either, who still have to comply with the law.

It's completely misleading to suggest that an impact assessment would make any difference to the legislation, or that a 'do nothing' approach protects businesses from legal action.

It appears to have been a “private letter”.

Cowards.

www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/23/dozens-of-labour-mps-warn-of-chaos-for-firms-over-gender-recognition-advice

I bet my Labour MP signed it. Mansplaining arsehole who responded to my questions about women's rights by talking about trans and not actually mentioning women once.

This is Starmer dithering between being scared of Reform and scared of Hypnotits and his crowd of blue-haired chancers, isn't it?

Possibly this is the next step then. To organise as many women as possible to test local businesses and release legal letters to the non compliant ones and make it bloody obvious that women will start mass sueing the pants off them.

It's past time to be a whole lot less nice, and to stop being the easy one to upset.

It's probably possible to make some educated guesses.

https://archive.ph/zrz6i

Template letters to send to businesses? Possibly a working party collating the responses.

Might larger businesses start to sue the govt for damage done while they dither?

Anyone remember anyone running around wailing about impact assessments for the women excluded from any provisions at all, like rape support or refuges never mind changing rooms and loos? Or talking about how to set up additional spaces for them? With idiots like Izzard dismissively saying they could self exclude from things but whatevs?

Why is it so hugely important and terrifying that men might be sad and not have an available facility in every space? It was bloody fine for women, upto and including rape, assault, job loss and years in court for daring to protest.

Men will fucking well survive without getting to see non consenting women taking their clothes off.

ChatGPT template, as a starting point:

'Dear [Name or “Sir/Madam”],

I am writing to ask whether your organisation is currently in full compliance with the recent Supreme Court decision confirming that the Equality Act 2010 permits the lawful provision of single-sex spaces, services, and facilities where this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

As you will be aware, this judgment reaffirmed that service providers may, and in some cases should, restrict certain spaces or services to biological females or males in order to meet privacy, dignity, and safety requirements, provided the criteria of proportionality and legitimate purpose are met.

Could you please confirm:

1. Whether your organisation provides any single-sex spaces or services (for example, toilets, changing rooms, accommodation, or support groups); and
2. If so, how you are ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court’s clarification of the Equality Act in this regard.

Transparency on this matter is important for public confidence and for ensuring that all service users understand their rights under current law.
I would be grateful if you could reply in writing, confirming your policy position and how it aligns with the Equality Act 2010 and the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Your address or town, if appropriate]
[Your email address]'

Any suggestions for improvements?

I expect any sensible buisness would be looking to the courts for steers on how to go forward, not the useless bunch of feeble, dithering nincompoops in government.

I would take out 'proportionality' etc - the SCJ was clear that if separate facilities were provided then it was proportionate/there had been a reason end of. But activists will witter and chew on that forever because it's NEVER proportionate to say no to a bloke.

Hm. Sounds a bit rapey to me, tbh.

Done

Thanks, Ophelia, good spot. Possibly also need to check facilities for staff are complying, maybe worth adding that explicitly?

Dear [Name or “Sir/Madam”],

I am writing to ask whether your organisation is currently in full compliance with the recent Supreme Court decision confirming that the Equality Act 2010 permits the lawful provision of single-sex spaces, services, and facilities.

As you will be aware, the judgment reaffirmed that service providers may, and in some cases should, restrict certain spaces or services to biological females or males in order to meet privacy, dignity, and safety requirements.

In addition, employers and organisations have duties under Health and Safety at Work legislation to provide a safe and appropriate working environment for staff. This includes ensuring that toilet, changing, and welfare facilities meet the needs of employees in accordance with the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, which specify the provision of separate facilities for men and women except where each facility is for single use and lockable.

Please confirm how your organisation ensures compliance with these requirements for your staff.

Could you please also confirm:

1. Whether your organisation provides any single-sex spaces or services (for example, toilets, changing rooms, accommodation, or support groups); and
2. If so, how you are ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court’s clarification of the Equality Act in this regard.

Transparency on this matter is important for public confidence and for ensuring that both service users and employees understand their rights under current law.
I would be grateful if you could reply in writing, confirming your policy position and how it aligns with the Equality Act 2010, the Supreme Court’s decision, and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.

etc

"But it also knows that the new code of practice will be unpopular with many of its supporters. It is seizing on the idea of a regulatory impact assessment to delay the inevitable; and to redirect the fury of its activists to the courts and tribunals, and to the brave individuals who will have to go to court at great personal cost, often one by one, sometimes in groups like the Darlington nurses, to enforce their rights. It’s a craven exercise in blame-shifting.

This is not what leadership looks like. "

Damn right.

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2025/10/31/cracking-the-code/

If the spads had any sense, they'd weigh up the long term damage to the party brand over this.

Labour's greatest weakness is, ironically, looking weak. Standing firm to uphold the fucking law they wrote themselves law would be an easy win to make them appear decisive, firm, and responsible.

Thread from Michael Foran

x.com/michaelpforan/status/1984186826278797789?t=-dfaYQxafbx2l_mp7R4w5A&s=19

Under the Equality Act 2006, if the minister does not approve draft guidance, she must provide the EHRC with reasons for rejecting the draft code of practise. Those reasons can be judicially reviewed for error of law, among other things.

This means that the Secretary of State is required, without unreasonable delay, to decide whether or not to reject the draft code and to provide reasons for a rejection. I do not think it would be lawful to refuse to make that decision while waiting for a RIA.

The process here is clear. If the minister does not wish to lay the draft code before Parliament she must reject it and provide written reasons for her decision. If her reason is that she considers a RIA to be necessary, that can be judicially reviewed.

Guidance is not regulation. A failure to understand the legal status of the code of practice, evidenced by an insistence that a regulatory impact assessment is necessary, could imply an error of law.

There has been a recurring theme over the last two decades of activists presenting guidance on how to comply with the law as if it’s the law. The EHRC issues guidance not to set new legal obligations but to explain to people who can’t afford legal advice what the law is.

The RIA process is designed to help government bodies to decide on what policy choices they should make within areas of their jurisdiction. It implies choice among a range of policy options.

If the minister thinks that the EHRC have misunderstood the law following FWS, she can say as much in her statement of reasons for rejecting the Code. That could then be reviewed for error of law. If she accepts the EHRC understanding of the law, then there is no need for a RIA

Either way, it is clear to me that any attempt to require the EHRC to conduct an RIA much arise as a result of a decision by the minister to reject the draft code. Doing so requires written reasons to be given, which can then be judicially reviewed.

Refusal to make a decision on whether or not to approve the code is not permitted. The wording of the EqA2006 is clear that the minister “shall” either approve the code or give written reasons for rejection. This implies a duty that cannot be ignored without good reason.

Failure to come to a decision within a reasonable time may also be subject to judicial review for failure to comply with a statutory obligation.

Is a Judicial Review the next step, then?

That's Not My Government - it's far too ethical

Cynically, I suppose that would kick the can down the road and be another year of men abusing women and their rights. And then they can reject the review, call another one or have an inquiry and that will kill another two years or so.

I bet there’s legislation that not been as carefully read, and by as many people, as this guidance 🙄

Excellent point. How disappointing.

Going to form the basis of my letter to my tra twat of an MP.