I've had a fairly swift response from my MP to the email I sent asking her why she'd signed a motion against the ECHR guidance.
In her automated office response to my original email it stated that she no longer signed such motions as she believed them to be a waste of time that achieve nothing.
She is a former member of the 'Socialist Campaign Group' within the Labour party and quite pally with Kate Osborne:
"Thank you for sharing your views and for taking the time to write to me on this important issue.
I appreciate that many women have strong concerns about the protection of single-sex spaces, services and categories, and I recognise the significance of the Supreme Court's judgment and the need for organisations to comply with the law as interpreted by the courts.
However, I also hear from many constituents who are concerned about the practical impact that changes to guidance and policy may have on trans people. My view is that these issues require a careful and balanced approach that protects women's privacy, dignity and safety while also ensuring that trans people are treated with respect and are protected from discrimination and harassment.
Please see below a letter I sent to Bridget Phillipson MP, Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women & Equalities addressing a range of concerns"
11th May 2026
"Dear Secretary of State,
I have been contacted by a significant number of constituents who are concerned about the possible content of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations which you announced in a statement on 14th April that the government intends to lay before the House in May or as soon as possible thereafter.
The judgement by the Supreme Court in April 2025 in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC16 was greeted by the government as providing welcome clarity that the terms ‘man’, ’women’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 mean biological sex.
However, in the absence of statutory guidance it has remained unclear what practical steps service providers must take following that judgement. Initial guidance published in April by the EHRC on the implications of the judgement was subsequently withdrawn in October and was also the subject of a legal challenge.
It is perfectly understandable that the government will have wanted to get the guidance right in what is a complex and controversial area where opinions can be very sharply divided.
Nevertheless, many of the constituents who have written to me on this subject are concerned that the focus of the EHRC’s interim guidance was very much on the exclusion of trans people from services and activities.
The key question in the Supreme Court’s judgment was the intention of the Equality Act 2010 and it found that the definition of sex on which the Act was based was a biological one so that under the Act a trans woman (someone born as a man) would not be regarded as being biologically female even if they possessed a Gender Recognition Certificate.
I should stress that I believe that there might be very good reasons why some spaces should be kept separate for ‘biological’ women to protect their privacy, dignity and safety.
For example, I am very much aware of your own experience of running a refuge for victims of domestic abuse and I have also campaigned very strongly on the need for safe accommodation for victims of domestic violence where they can start to rebuild their lives.
There are other situations as well where the justification for providing separate spaces for ‘biological’ women seems relatively clear such as sharing a prison cell or a changing room where there are not lockable rooms.
Nevertheless, my constituents argue that there are other cases where the argument for the exclusion of trans people from single-sex services is much less clear, such as in the case of a walking or book club.
Even the issue of the arrangements for public toilets is not straightforward given the practical issues involved and was the focus of the legal challenge at the High Court over the EHRC’s interim guidance.
Trans people view the Supreme Court judgement against the background of the discrimination and harassment that many of them experience. Even when making allowance for changes in the way that crime is recorded, it is shocking that instances of hate crime recorded against transgender people more than doubled between 2017-18 and 2024-25 for example.
I strongly urge the government to take renewed action to tackle discrimination, hatred and bigotry against trans and non-binary people and to legislate to finally ban conversion practices aimed at transgender people which would give them greater confidence that the government takes trans rights seriously.
I make no claims to legal expertise, but I note that even before the Supreme Court judgement the Equality Act provided for access to same-sex services to be restricted in the case of trans people where that was ‘a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.
My constituents ask that the government adopts an approach in the Code of Practice that is workable and sensitive, focusing not just on circumstances where trans exclusion might be reasonable, but also setting out how service providers that wish to remain trans inclusive can do so.
The fact that it has taken so long to produce the Code of Practice suggests just how complex the issues involved are; we must safeguard both the right of women to safety and the right of trans people to be protected from discrimination and harassment. Neither blanket trans exclusion nor inclusion will properly do that"
"As you will see from the letter which I sent to the Secretary of State, I have urged the government to ensure that any Code of Practice is workable, proportionate and sensitive to the complexities involved. While I support legal clarity for service providers, I do not believe that either blanket exclusion or blanket inclusion provides an appropriate answer in every circumstance. Different settings may require different approaches, consistent with the Equality Act and the Supreme Court's judgment.
For that reason, I am joining colleagues in calling for the draft Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations to be disapproved via prayer motions in Parliament, as I believe further consideration is needed to ensure that the guidance strikes the right balance between protecting women's rights and safeguarding the rights and dignity of trans people.
I hope this helps to explain my position, even if we may not agree on every aspect of this issue"