Contribution
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement.
It is understood that the Secretary of State first received the draft code of practice in September last year, nine months ago—nine months in which the law has been clear, the Supreme Court had ruled, and women, girls, public bodies and businesses across the country have been waiting for the Government to act. What did the Government do when they received it? Instead of action, we saw delay after delay from a Government reluctant to face their own Back Benchers and protect vulnerable women and girls.
First, the Secretary of State claimed that she needed impact assessments; then she said that consultation with devolved Governments was required, despite this being a reserved matter; after that it was purdah; and finally, having exhausted every excuse, she chose to lay the code of practice before the House on the very last day before the Whitsun parliamentary recess, seemingly actively minimising scrutiny. That is not acceptable. It is also telling that the Secretary of State has sadly not even come to the House herself to account for these decisions—it seems the lure of Makerfield is too great.
The Secretary of State previously told the House that she requested only minor changes to the EHRC’s draft. If that is the case, I ask the Minister, in the Secretary of State’s absence, why it took eight months to request them. The statement talks about engagement—in the interests of transparency, who was that with? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and I have written to the chair of the EHRC asking for clarity on what changes were made. Under the Equality Act 2006, the Secretary of State must provide written reasons for rejecting the original draft. As changes plainly have been made, will the Minister commit to publishing the detail on what has changed and why?
The code of practice is right to emphasise the importance of protecting single-sex spaces and services for women, but the law has been settled since the Supreme Court judgment over a year ago. Sex means biological sex, and yet the Secretary of State has failed to enforce that ruling and women have faced ongoing harassment and discrimination for stating that basic fact. We have seen cases such as the Darlington nurses, who were hounded out of their roles or drawn into lengthy tribunal processes for asserting their legal right not to share changing rooms with men. The Government have done nothing to protect them. What does the Secretary of State and the Minister say to those many women whose privacy, safety and dignity have been compromised during these nine months of inaction? Why did the Secretary of State fail to get a grip on her own Government when Department after Department claimed that they could not update their policies while awaiting the code?
The Minister said in her statement: “We are committed to doing this and are working across Departments, considering the implications of the code to policies and activities.” Is that why, more than a year after the Supreme Court ruling, the NHS still has not updated its policy on single-sex spaces for staff? Perhaps following the new Health Secretary’s recent remarks there may be greater clarity in the wider Labour Government about what a woman is, but this revisionist mindset about Labour’s supposed long-term support for single-sex spaces will frankly be fresh news to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield). Will the Minister set out the steps that all Departments will now take to comply with the code, and will they all do so without further delay?
In the meantime, some have sought actively to misrepresent this issue as an attack on trans people. It is not. It is simply about applying the law correctly while safeguarding women and girls. I think the Green party’s deputy leaders’ inflammatory rhetoric is reprehensible and unhelpful, especially at the start of Pride Month. Not to be outdone, we are witnessing peak Lib Dem-ery, with the party leader claiming to accept the Supreme Court’s judgment while opposing the guidance that flows from it. As has rightly been said, that position is unprincipled. Only the Liberal Democrats can claim to support the rule of law while rejecting the practical application of it.
This code of practice is welcome. As the Minister said, it covers a broad range of areas including age, disability, pregnancy and maternity, race and so much more, but, disgracefully, it has landed nine months overdue—and helpfully after local elections in which we women voted. During that time, women have paid the price of inaction. Now that the code has finally been published, women and girls need proper action—not hiding away, not further delay and not more excuses. We need the immediate enforcement of the rights that women and girls are entitled to under the law of this land.