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legal obligations, despite an updated code of practice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) remaining unpublished more than five months after it was submitted to ministers.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

I have a strong feeling that many employers think the guidance whenever they appear apply to them. Thus also spouting the “it’s not clear” line.

Perhaps at this point the Health and Safety Executive need to get some communications, press releases, ANYTHING really, to inform employers that they cannot continue to break the law if they have self ID type policies. The HSE seems so quiet on this, apart from a former official a while back.

And like it or not, unionised organisations should follow the law.

Damn I love Trevor Phillips. His point about reading and sorting out over 2.5k pages changing 28 existing laws in less than a year while BP is taking so long over one issue.

Pity he didn’t withstand the TRA pressure over the guidance at the time, but maybe he feels this more deeply because of that.

Sex Matters correspondence with the HSE - they haven't even bother to reply to the last letter from Sex Matters 🙄

https://sex-matters.org/posts/category/publications/letters/health-and-safety-executive/

Pity he didn’t withstand the TRA pressure over the guidance at the time, but maybe he feels this more deeply because of that.

Interesting point. I wonder what influence TRAs had and who wielded it? Likely suspects are Press For Change and GIRES. The Dept of Health had been funding GIRES since 2007 to produce guidance for the NHS.

All the TRA tentacles into Government and NGOs were swishing about in a soup of TWAW. So the EHRC and Phillips might just have been going with the flow rather than actually interrogating the EA2010 properly, which would be an embarrassing admission if true.

Why can’t BP just answer a straightforward question on this. If it’s so ‘crystal clear’. That TP dialogue is maddening.

Someone else needs to ask again and bluntly.

A while ago Sex Matters detailed the way the original EA2010 guidance was rewritten by TRAs. The original guidance was accurate, balanced and protected single sex spaces. The TRAs didn’t like that so it was changed. They’re trying to pull the same stunt again but this time in daylight. We see you guys and we object.

Thanks I missed that. it’s a disgrace that a public body can’t be bothered to reply and do something so straightforward. It’s almost like they aren’t accountable to the public! And a crystal clear situation should only require an equally crystal clear message.

But it IS "crystal clear" that

• Employers as Duty Bearers already have legal responsibilities under the Workplace Regulations and
• Organisations as Duty Bearers already have legal responsibilities under the EA2010, as will covered by Code of Practice for Services, Public functions and Associations when it is issued.

This has been the case since the Supreme Court Judgement. They have all been told to take legal advice and implement the Supreme Court judgement, advice which they will probably take anyway once the Code of Practice is issued.

The fact that For Women Scotland is able to take a case against the Scottish Government about men in women's prisons shows that the Code of Practice is irrelevant to legal responsibilities.

The Code of Practice when issued should make it easier for organisations to comply with the law without resorting to legal advice. In practice, IMHO, it will just give more scope for TRA's to argue the toss about how the law should be implemented and will be used by organisations to delay things further.

It is annoying that Phillipson is taking so long to issue the Code of Practice but it is barely relevant legally compared to the EA2010 as primary legislation plus the clarification by the Supreme Court.

I might be unduly cynical but I honestly do not expect organisations to suddenly jump into action as soon as the Code of Practice is issued.

All that is happening now IMHO is that waiting for the Code of Practice has put a temporary hold on the further court cases that will be needed to force organisations to comply with the existing law.

But it IS "crystal clear" that

• Employers as Duty Bearers already have legal responsibilities under the Workplace Regulations and
• Organisations as Duty Bearers already have legal responsibilities under the EA2010, as will covered by Code of Practice for Services, Public functions and Associations when it is issued.

This has been the case since the Supreme Court Judgement. They have all been told to take legal advice and implement the Supreme Court judgement, advice which they will probably take anyway once the Code of Practice is issued.

The fact that For Women Scotland is able to take a case against the Scottish Government about men in women's prisons shows that the Code of Practice is irrelevant to legal responsibilities.

The Code of Practice when issued should make it easier for organisations to comply with the law without resorting to legal advice. In practice, IMHO, it will just give more scope for TRA's to argue the toss about how the law should be implemented and will be used by organisations to delay things further.

It is annoying that Phillipson is taking so long to issue the Code of Practice but it is barely relevant legally compared to the EA2010 as primary legislation plus the clarification by the Supreme Court.

I might be unduly cynical but I honestly do not expect organisations to suddenly jump into action as soon as the Code of Practice is issued.

All that is happening now IMHO is that waiting for the Code of Practice has put a temporary hold on the further court cases that will be needed to force organisations to comply with the existing law.

Agreed, especially when that public body has significant legal powers. The HSE can issue such things as Improvement Notices which can compel employers to take action, if they were to get into the fight too, it could make a lot of difference.

Well, they are accountable to the minister for work and pensions - Pat McFadden. Anyone know his position?

Shadow - Helen Whately. Don’t know anything about her…

Thank you! Found it.

The Equality Act: 15 years old today!
8 April 2025
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/the-equality-act-15-years-old-today/

Lots of employers are also service providers. And EHRC did mix it up by mentioning employers in the interim guidance. And it wasn't a given what the knock on effect of FWS would be on WR1992 (thank you Mr Justice Swift ❤️).

But, come on now! The delays are obviously purely political.

Also, don't we need a new employers' Code of Practice now?

The reason the SC judgment happened was because a devolved administration got the law wrong and doubled down all the way up through the courts. Who trusts the SNP to sign off on it, exactly?

Definitely.

TERF 👍

I looked on the HSE website and they only take action if there has been an incident resulting in physical injury - or death.

I love him too. Always enjoy watching him.

Yes, lots of employers are also service providers but their functions are covered by different parts of EA2010 and by different Codes of Practice.

My understanding, and I am happy to be corrected, is:

The NHS as an employer needs to comply with the Workplace Regulations as far as single-sex toilets and changing rooms are concerned.

• If women are discriminated against because of breach of those regulations they take a Sex Discrimination Claim under the Equality Act 2010.

The NHS as a service provider needs to comply with provisions in the Equality Act 2010 as far as patient accommodation, changing rooms, toilets, etc. are concerned. There are also NHS Policies about the obligations of the NHS to patients.

• If women are discriminated against because of breach of those provisions then they take a Sex Discrimination Claim under the Equality Act 2010.

Yes, the Interim Update (not "Guidance" because that term has a specific meaning) was wider than the issues covered by the Code of Practice for Services, Public functions and Associations. It was basically a "holding statement" pending production of Codes of Practice which, when approved and issued by Parliament, are magically transformed into "Statutory Guidance".

"And it wasn't a given what the knock on effect of FWS would be on WR1992 (thank you Mr Justice Swift ❤️)."

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by this.

"But, come on now! The delays are obviously purely political."

Of course they are 🤷‍♀️

"Also, don't we need a new employers' Code of Practice now?"

I thought we would but the EHRC has not given any indication that they think it is necessary.

What the EHRC said about workplaces in the Interim Update:

In relation to workplaces, requirements are set out in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. These require suitable and sufficient facilities to be provided including toilets and sometimes changing facilities and showers. Toilets, showers and changing facilities may be mixed-sex where they are in a separate room lockable from the inside. Where changing facilities are required under the regulations, and where it is necessary for reasons of propriety, there must be separate facilities for men and women or separate use of those facilities such as separate lockable rooms.

It is not compulsory for services that are open to the public to be provided on a single-sex basis or to have single-sex facilities such as toilets. These can be single-sex if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and they meet other conditions in the Act. However, it could be indirect sex discrimination against women if the only provision is mixed-sex.

In workplaces and services that are open to the public where separate single-sex facilities are lawfully provided:

• trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex
• in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities
• however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use
• where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided

The Interim Update has been removed from the EHRC website but has been archived at web.archive.org - messy link follows:

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250701131550/www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20250701131550/www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

I think I asked on another thread ( there have been many - are your ears burning BP?) has Bridget Phillipson issued any sort of public statement about having her lunitic siding with GLP dismissed by the High Court?

What is it with Labour? If it is not Starmer getting it wrong over and over again, now we have DP.

Should she as a Minister who took this decision explain how she got it so wrong?

In a recent Sex Matters statement (hard to keep up with them, but always useful) they did a short over view of how the EHRC was captured. (Again another nod to Lady Falkner as the vipers' nest she found herself in and worked to turn it around. I think Sex Matters dont ever credit her though ). Quote:

Soon after the enactment of the Equality Act, the Equality and Human Rights Commission produced three statutory codes of practice: one for services, public functions and associations (“the services code”), one for employment and one for equal pay.

During the consultation process, after input from transactivists, a simple clear explanation of the law in the services code was replaced by the instruction that:

“If a service provider provides single or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present. However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment. This will only be lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate [aim]”.

This instruction told service providers to allow people to access opposite-sex spaces and services and was widely understood as meaning that excluding them had to be done on a “case by case” basis. That was never an accurate statement of the law.
Nor was it workable. The only way to operate the policy in practice was to pretend not to be able to notice who was male and who was female, and to silence, punish and exclude women who complained.
There was nothing similar in the employers’ guidance (which only said that when an employee transitions the employer should consider offering them “different” facilities).

But Stonewall and other lobbyists used the legally erroneous services code to tell both employers and service providers that trans-identifying individuals were legally entitled to use opposite-sex facilities, and to adopt a definition of “transphobia” which included not accepting that someone’s “gender identity” could override their sex.
Stonewall even called on the international body for human-rights regulators to discipline the head of the EHRC for doing her job.

Intro to much longer article at https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/why-are-employers-waiting-for-the-wrong-guidance/

Akua Reindorf tweeted her objections to what BP is saying in various interviews on this subject:

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/2025630338442002520

Very surprising to hear @bphillipsonMP say the Supreme Court judgment in @Forwomenscot is “crystal, crystal clear”. Clarity of understanding was not evident in the submissions made on her behalf in the GLP judicial review (which, FTAOD, were rejected) …/1

And if it's clear, why does @bphillipsonMP need so long to ensure the code of practice is “legally robust” and “minimise the risk of further challenge”? The High Court has vindicated the @EHRC’s understanding of the law. It’s time for govt to show that it trusts its regulator /2

Plus, what's this “process we have to go through”? Is it written down somewhere? Why does it take nearly a year? NB the @EHRC already consulted the devolved governments, in the same way that it consulted the entire country. /end