Complaint in to Lewisham re EHRC

[13RidgmontRoad]

Two of us put our heads together and have submitted the following. More obviously very welcome. If there is appetite for in-person discussion or activism around this issue I'm happy to (vet and) arrange it.

Complaints to Lewisham: lewisham.gov.uk/mayorandcouncil/complaints-and-feedback/how-to-send-us-a-complaint-or-feedback

*

Mayor Shrivastava,

We are writing to you regarding the recent statement published by Lewisham Council concerning the EHRC's updated Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice (CoP).

We agree with you that all residents of our borough deserve to live with dignity and safety and have no desire to see trans people excluded from council services. We are, like many, firmly in favour of the provision of third spaces where these can be appropriately and safely implemented.

However, we are concerned that in your focus on ensuring inclusivity for trans residents, the council is disregarding the importance of protecting single-sex spaces for natal women and girls in a context where they continue to be subject to disproportionate levels of assault, abuse and harassment (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2024) which in our view and in law underpins the existence of single sex provision.

It is essential that the council acknowledges that provision for trans people cannot be made at the expense of these established protections and that women and girls' rights and experience have weight. Any future approach to service design must be handled with care, acknowledging the needs of the whole population of the borough, including those for whom single-sex provision is a necessity for cultural, religious, or personal safety reasons and to whom the council has an equal obligation.

As you know, the CoP is designed to protect women in single-sex spaces. This is following on from the ­Supreme Court's April 2025 decision in For Women Scotland that the interpretation of UK equality law requires terms such as 'man' and 'woman' to be read with their ordinary biological meanings. That means that women's services which are sex-segregated - among them changing rooms, rape crisis centres and hospital wards - must not be open to men, whatever their gender identity. This does not mean transgender people have in some way lost legal protection - they are protected under equality law. The EHRC also provides public-facing organisations with practical advice about how to comply with the law.

We would be grateful if you could clarify the council's specific approach to the day-to-day management of its services. Specifically, how does the council intend to ensure the continued accessibility and privacy of, for example, female-only swimming, gym, and dance sessions'which are vital services for many local residents'as well as the management of toilet and changing facilities across our public sites? And how does the council intend to ensure that services for some of its most vulnerable women, including domestic abuse services, rape crisis services and refuges - appropriately meet their needs?

The council is right to be conscious of the experience of different minorities within the borough. However, a truly egalitarian, inclusive and conciliatory approach must also recognise that Lewisham is home to a diverse population with a wide range of needs. We believe that working to achieve a balance where provision is thoughtfully designed to be inclusive of all residents, rather than prioritising the needs of one group to the detriment of another is the most appropriate use of council resources. It also importantly fulfils the council's obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty - which, counter to your assertions in your motion - already protects right of trans people from discrimination, harassment and victimisation under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, alongside, and with an equal weighting to, the eight other protected characteristics, including sex.

A challenge by the council against the EHRC Code of Practice, underpinned as it is by the ruling of the Supreme Court, would represent a gross misuse of the council's resources which runs counter to your obligations as part of Best Value duties and leaves you open to legal challenge and scrutiny, including by the Local Government Ombudsman at the point of which service users are affected by your decisions.

At a time when local government resources are severely constrained, we would expect you to focus resources on delivering the best outcomes for all residents rather than pursuing - at potentially significant cost to the council - a position which is at odds with your responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 (including the promotion of good relations between communities), on which you have not undertaken any public consultation and on which the EHRC and Supreme Court have conclusively ruled.

We look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter and understanding the council's strategy for navigating these issues in practice. We would appreciate a response to this letter within the timescales set out by Lewisham Council's complaints procedure.

Name 1
Name 2

I would send to the Mayor and Chief Executive and also copy in the legal department. The Chief executive runs the council

If you want to mention toilets as it seems that’s what get most attention:

‪Options‬ for allowing everyone in all toilets
‪They can: ‬
‪1. Dismantle all single sex toilet cubicles and build individual universal rooms‬
‪2. Contravene building regs, legislation and standards and permit everyone in to cubicles‬ and separate sex toilet washrooms. Certain sections of the Sexual Offences Act may need to be revisited.
‪3. State single sex means single sex and the regulated toilets stay as they are‬

‪3. is best for health, safety and not blowing all their budget on less safe and less hygienic designs‬

I may helpfully show them the building regs 2010 and mentioning that if the building owner or those responsible for the toilet refurbishment works contravene the Building Regulations, the local authority may prosecute them(selves) in the magistrates’ court 😵‍💫

Thank you very much! I appreciate your contributions and the knowledge you bring to a lot of these threads.

I think we both wanted less focus on toilets in our letter, rightly or wrongly. “Toilets” seems to get everyone taking up a defensive position, and here it seemed like it might be more productive to point to other provision in the borough which is and should be single-sex. Let’s see. We may still get the same mumbo-jumbo back from them.

Tell them you know they are looking to make savings to all to essential services. There is massive pressures on children's, adult social care and temporary housing.
He the mayor should be focusing on this.

Nice one op. I look forward to your updates

Excellent letter @13RidgmontRoad , thank you.

Good letter - best way to ensure a response is to send to CEX and head of legal but also to put the questions in as an FOI. The council has a statutory obligation to respond to an FOI within 20 days and there are only a very few reasons not to do so, none of which would apply to this letter. For the FOI request I’d suggest you just make a list of questions. FOIs could be very powerful tools in flushing out exactly what local authorities are doing and, indeed, getting them to confront their own lack of action, as most are putting their heads in the sand and hoping it will all go away. We should all be putting FOIs in to our local authorities.

Great letter OP. Agree that FOIs are the best way of getting a response. In this case though, I don’t believe there will have been any implementation of the motion, so the questions might need to be along the lines of:

1. Have you taken legal advice on the implications of your motion and if so, what advice did you receive and from whom? (Answer is probably no)
2. What is the anticipated cost of pursuing this motion and where is the funding coming from to do this? (The answer will probably be that they haven’t considered this).
3. Has an equality impact assessment been initiated to understand the impact of any potential actions on residents and service users, taking into account all nine protected characteristics? If this has not happened yet, when will this be done? (Don’t think this would have happened but makes point it should).

Yes I agree. It’s difficult to know what their position is, but be aware these are the choices if they want everyone to access every toilet.

The only thing I would add is my previous post is this is only a basic outline. I can go in to much more detail about why 1. or 2. won’t work as a policy if you get to that stage. For example in terms of risks and equality impact assessment.