Bridget Phillipson insists Supreme Court ruling was ‘crystal clear’ on what employers should do about single sex spaces

[IwantToRetire]

Employers do not need to wait for long-delayed guidance on single-sex spaces before implementing the Supreme Court ruling on biological sex, Bridget Phillipson has said.

The women and equalities minister said the judgment last year had been “crystal clear” and insisted that organisations should already understand their legal obligations, despite an updated code of practice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) remaining unpublished more than five months after it was submitted to ministers.

Phillipson told Sky News she hoped to move “as fast as I can” to lay the guidance before parliament but said it was still going through the required processes, including consultation with devolved administrations.

article continues at https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/trans-guidance-bridget-phillipson-labour-xtvnb3hwn

And also at https://archive.is/HGHc4

So everybody but BP is wrong.

The EHRC, businesses, Lady Falkner.

Her hands are clean.

Nothing to do with her.

Its everybody else who is making it a problem

So if it’s crystal clear, why is the guidance proving so hard to approve? Should be simple, surely?

I've just spotted another culprit making BP look like she isn't doing her job - devolved administrations!

Anyone seen any news reports about "devolved administrations" saying it is all too much and cant find the time to reply on being "consulted".

No but if the snp are involved you can guarantee that they're putting pressure on her to slow everything down same with the Welsh Labour lot

Particularly with elections to Holyrood and the Senedd coming in May. They will be desperate not to have to deal with this during their campaigns.

Especially with the snp in crt to keep men in women's prisons, the legal guidance coming out now would be really bad for them

And Welsh Labour under attack from both the left and the right and highly likely to lose badly for the first time since devolution happened.

Agree that the SNP will make life as difficult as possible for the Uk government over this. I mean, aren’t they fighting against men not being allowed into women’s prisons?

I mean, she’s not wrong that it was crystal clear, and anyone competent to run an organisation should be able to figure out what they need to do…

The most staggering thing is that during all this time of not being able to say it is as clear as crystal she (and other Labour women) have had time to slur Lady Falkner, imply what she did was wrong, and then suddenly, its was all alright all along.

They really are the lowest of the low.

Something that Labour seems to excel out. Putting personal vendettas above it seems just about everything else.

Not forgetting their swarmy insinuation that it is all going better now that good girl MAS is in post - almost as though knowing nothing was wrong they wouldn't admit it until Falkner was no longer in post.

😡

The treatment of Falkner was shameful, petty, spiteful and totally unnecessary - it bought Labour nothing by treat her the way they did when there would have been no political price for leaving her in place and accorded her the courtesy due senior independent public office holders who's performance has been exemplary. It is exhibit A of Labour's inability to govern effectively irrespective of what you think of their underlying program or the coherence of their mission (or apparent lack there of)

In her X thread last night Akua Reindorf said:

"NB the EHRC already consulted the devolved governments, in the same way that it consulted the entire country."

She clearly has no idea how many organisations are most likely sitting there with illegal policies and arrangements “waiting for the guidance”.

Is it me or does she keep flip flopping?

Well she says things in public yet fails to do anything about them.
Using her role in government she send lawyers to court to argue the TRA position.

Watch her actions, they contradict her words.

I could have sworn she said not so long ago that employment situations didn't have to change to single sex facilities. Now she's says the SC ruling was clear and that ruling basically meant that facilities should be single sex.

It would seem that they hoped that the GLP would win its case hence the submission from phillipson and co saying it was too harsh and implied that there was wiggle room to allow some men into womens single sex spaces. Now that the crts have reaffirmed the SC ruling and subsequent guidance labour has no choice but to obey the law or change it. Any attempt to change the law to strip women of our basic human rights would end labour as a party and government, they'd be forced to call a general election and have it as a manifesto pledge which would end the labour party.
If we're really honest here we all knew that labour wanted to continue to strip womens rights by stealth and expected FWS to lose, then when FWS won they hoped they could bully falkner into keeping the fudge and continue to ignore the law whilst saying the right things, the GLP have scuppered that and all that they have left to pin their hopes on is the current scot gov vs FWS case. The fact that Philipson is now saying that the ruling is crystal clear says all we need to know about the scot gov arguments in that case (if we hadn't heard the argument already).
The Darlington and Peggie cases and public support has made it clear that women and the general public are not on their side nor are the courts (although sandy is having to go to the appeal crt which will make precedent) and they have no choice but to obey the law now or become the next SNP, nobody wants to be the next Stergeon and have their career and reputation destroyed like hers has been by this.
As long as we keep holding the government's and companies/charities/service providers feet to the flames we will win this battle and now labour knows this too so delaying tactics are just making them look bad

Don’t forget she supported the Good Law Project’s claim in the high Court that the ECHR’s interim guidance was unlawful. Her batshit arguments put by her barrister were dismissed along with all the claims and the judge found the interim guidance was lawful.

So it is pretty bizarre that she’s now pretending it’s been clear all along. But then she’s a politician so bare faced lies go with the territory

If it's crystal clear then why doesn't she put the guidance before parliament, all the Senedd keep saying is it's waiting for the guidance, it's waiting for the guidance.
I say how do they get to call themselves a government if they need to wait for guidance from outside sources, What's the point of them?
Labour may get a pounding in the election in May but Plaid Cymru will likely be the party that picks up it's votes and they're just the Welsh language version of Labour, so we'll still be in the same rotten boat as before. At least if Phillipson were to release the guidance they wouldn't have that stone to hide under.

Let me be crystal clear - Release the Guidance Phillipson. 😤

Employers' obligations were only clarified by the High Court ten days ago, in a decision opposed by her department. She's a shameless liar.

Put it in writing then if it’s that easy. God they’re painful. All of them.

Don’t wait for more clarity on single-sex spaces, bosses told
Bridget Phillipson, the equalities minister, insists Supreme Court ruling was ‘crystal clear’ on what employers should do
archive.is/HGHc4

"Employers do not need to wait for long-delayed guidance on single-sex spaces before implementing the Supreme Court ruling on biological sex, Bridget Phillipson has said."

The Times article helpfully spells out what Phillipson omitted to say in her interview on Sky News with Trevor Phillips but would have been even clearer if they had named that the Code of Practice on Phillipson's desk is for Services, Public functions and Associations, not for organisations as "Employers":

"Rules for employers fall under different regulations to the code of practice. Under workplace health and safety regulations employers must provide “sufficient and suitable” lavatories, changing or washing facilities for their employees. This means separate sex facilities, based on biological sex, or fully enclosed mixed-sex rooms.

Places such as businesses, gyms and cafés are not required to provide single-sex services or facilities to the public but if they do, and they characterise them as such, this must now be based on biology."

Sky News, Bridget Phillipson, 22Feb2026
For Women Scotland YouTube Channel
Interview with Bridget Phillipson where she says she will publish the EHRC Code of Practice and the Supreme Court ruling was "crystal, crystal clear".

Transcript

Trevor Phillips: All right, listen. Um, last point which is outstanding. I ask you and your colleagues pretty much every time you come on here. Um, the Equality and Human Rights Commission sent you its guidance uh which uh was meant to give practical effect to the ruling of the Supreme Court that uh in Equality Act sex means biological sex. Uh they sent you that in September I think 171 days ago. You're supposed to lay it before parliament so employers can be get can get on with their their job. 171 days on still hasn't seen the light of day. When are we going to see it?

Bridget Phillipson: So I hope to move as fast as I can. We're going through a process.

Trevor Phillips: You said that to me six months ago and it's well it's not that fast.

Bridget Phillipson: In September we received it. There's a process we have to go through which is the same for any government and will be the same for any minister. We consult with the devolved governments and we work through what we have received. But I want to be absolute

Trevor Phillips: if I can just if I can just

Bridget Phillipson: No. No. I can be absolutely clear.

Trevor Phillips: Can I just I I probably have something to say about this. Uh having been the person in 2010 when you passed the act which had 218 clauses, 28 schedule, changed 100 existing laws, we published and I personally signed off two and a half thousand pages of guidance within a year. You've just got to do one bit which doesn't change the law. and you've taken six months.

Bridget Phillipson: So this is the first time this has been updated in over a decade. So yes, it is important that the the questions around sex and gender are properly addressed. But if I can just be absolutely clear, the Supreme Court ruling set out very very clearly what sex means. It means biological sex. And my message to anyone out there is that they don't have to wait for the code of practice. You mentioned employers. This actually this isn't you you'll know this isn't about employees. Employers have legal responsibilities. They need to make sure that their staff, for example, have access to appropriate changing facilities and are not subject to undue challenges at work.

Trevor Phillips: So this why you just tell them what you have just said because if you ask any employer, they will tell you they are waiting for the government to tell them whether somebody can decide that they are the opposite gender and use the opposite gender to their biological sex. Uh the facilities of that of that sex.

Bridget Phillipson: Well, as you will know from your previous rule, this code of practice is not about workforce regulations, workplace regulations, and is not about employers. My message to employers for the avoidance of any doubt is that they should understand the Supreme Court ruling and take action. They don't need to wait for the code of practice. We will publish it. We will bring it forward. I remain absolutely committed to single sex bases. I used to run a women's refuge. I know how important this is. But because I did that, I know how important it is that when we publish that code of practice, it is legally robust. We minimize the risk of further challenge to that, that we avoid any undue uncertainty. But the Supreme Court ruling was crystal crystal clear.

Trevor Phillips: Secretary of State, thank you for your time this morning.

Bridget Phillipson: Thank you.

--

I have commented under the video:

"It would be really helpful if every time the Code of Practice is mentioned it was referred to in full as the "Code of Practice for Services, Public functions and Associations" and that it was also stated that this therefore does not apply to organisations as Employers - they just need to follow the law in the Workplace Regulations. Every time this comes up it is with reference to "Employers" and it is then stated that it does not apply to Employers. This just perpetuates the confusion."

Ffs that isn’t an answer. Does anyone know bar BP in her own head apparently what must be done?

Did you nail your colours to the wrong mast, Phillipson? Were you hoping the GLP would throw you a lifeline in - at the very least - a partial win in the HC so you could trot out the "It's complicated" line as a reason to sideline this?

I can hear the faint beeping of a ferret reversing.

The delay issuing the Code of Practice for Services, Public functions and Associations is inexcusable but at least she is clear that this delay is no excuse for Employers to be stalling - because the Code is nothing to do with workplaces and they just need to follow the law in the Workplace Regulations.

Three separate bugbears for me:

1. Phillipson's delay in issuing the Code of Practice for Services, Public functions and Associations
2. Organisations thinking (pretending to think?) that that Code applies to them as Employers and ignoring repeated instructions from the EHRC and Phillipson to stop breaking the law and comply with the Workplace Regulations
3. Confused, misleading reporting on the above which suggests that the Code of Practice is relevant to organisations as Employers.