EHRC have suubmitted updated Code of Practice to Phillipson

[Forresty]

Stuff seems to be happening:

On 4 September 2025 the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) submitted a draft update of its Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations to the Minister for Women and Equalities.

The EHRC recently received feedback on the updated Code from the UK government.

Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said:

“Progress is being made towards accurate and up-to-date guidance on the Equality Act 2010 being available to service providers, associations and those exercising public functions.

“The UK government recently provided us with a narrow set of comments on the draft Code of Practice we submitted in September. Having considered this feedback alongside consultation responses and further legal analysis, we have made adjustments where they help the Code provide legally accurate, practical guidance that is useful to duty bearers.

“These aim to strengthen duty bearers’ understanding of the law and how it applies across a range of the scenarios they encounter day-to-day. So that all service users are treated with dignity and respect, in line with the Equality Act.

“Our amended draft services Code of Practice has now been sent for the Secretary of State to approve in advance of it being laid in Parliament.”

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/update-code-practice-services-public-functions-and-associations

They are the fault of BP in the sense that lots of organisations not covered by this guidance have used the lack of this guidance as a reason for not implementing the SC ruling.

For example, the Brighton school that is subject to legal action by a parent used the lack of this guidance as a reason to delay implementing the SC ruling, even though this guidance is irrelevant to schools.

So the delay in this guidance has had much wider implications than it should have.

Of course when (if??) this guidance gets approved, there's no guarantee that the blockers won't find another illogical reason to delay - although helpfully the GLP's most recent loss ensured that a High Court Judge ruled that the H&S workplace regulations must follow the same logic as the SC Equality Act ruling and mean biological sex so that closed off that option for the blockers.

Clearly nothing….

Did you let them know? They value feedback, ime

'The equalities charity Stonewall welcomed the “constructive working” between the government and EHRC.'

Stonewall welcoming constructive working is not a good sign.

Well cynical me can see the reasoning behind letting them go guns blazing 😁

And to be honest I probably shouldn’t be questioning any of it as I’m starting to think a lot is deliberate. I just get annoyed when things don’t add up!

re Brighton; I noted that the HSE toilet guidance was updated on 26th Jan 2026.

DfE Schools guidance for staff etc dates back to 2015 as far as I can tell, but directs to HSE guidance for toilets.

The only trans related stuff I can find so far is the pregnancy guidance whereby they say it relates to trans men and non binary etc, but thereafter says expectant mothers and breastfeeding (thank god.)

BP did update the RSE guidance in line with FWS; it’s actually quoted. And that needed to get out asap for schools to panic and have time to rewrite their plans for sept.

I’d love to know what the HSE guidelines said before Jan.

Yes. It's also very simple to know what sex you are and use the appropriate services and facilities (when these are single sex).

To extend the analogy, it's as if all the pubs had grouped together and campaigned for everyone to accept that someone who has drunk 6 pints isn't really over the limit...

"How do we know that the breathalyser is working correctly?"

"How does anyone know that this person actually drank these 6 pints of alcohol? Did anyone measure the alcohol content in each pint just before it was consumed?"

Etc etc.

The details? Because the law doesn’t say you mustn’t drink and drive, it gives a blood alcohol limit that you must not exceed.

That’s not the same thing.

It would be simpler if it said you can’t drive within 8 hours of any alcohol consumption or something, but it is actually blood alcohol levels that are important to how much your driving is impeded.

The guidance gives us the practical understanding of what this means for amount of alcohol consumed relative to body size and time elapsed before driving.

It doesn’t change the law but it makes it easier to understand how to apply it in a practical situation.

The subject of direct and indirect discrimination against people with protected characteristics can be complicated and I think service providers have been made confused by Stonewall’s illegal advice over the past 15 years.

The best outcome would be for service providers and employers to obey the law without having to be taken to court by another poor woman having to crowd fund and stick her neck out for a load of abuse.

They are more likely to do this with correct guidance in place, and not the crappy old guidance that is legally incorrect.

Fair point.

It's actually simpler to know which sex you are than whether you are over the drink drive limit. The only sure way to know you're not breaking the law re drink-driving is to consume no alcohol.