Senior Labour MP Emily Thornberry has backed Islington Labour’s criticism of a new statutory equality code governing services, public functions and the provision of separate or single-sex facilities.
The updated Equality and Human Rights Commission Code of Practice came into force on 5 August 2026 after receiving ministerial approval and being laid before Parliament.
Posting a statement from Islington Labour leader Una O’Halloran, Thornberry wrote:
“A reminder that yesterday, today, tomorrow and always: trans women are women and trans men are men.
“Proud to represent a Borough that recognises that protecting women doesn’t need to come at the expense of trans people’s safety and dignity.”
Thornberry represents Islington South and Finsbury and chairs the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. She previously served in several senior shadow cabinet positions, including shadow foreign secretary and shadow attorney general.
Islington Labour expresses concern
O’Halloran’s statement said Islington Labour was “incredibly concerned” about the potential consequences of the code, particularly for transgender residents.
It argued that policies restricting participation in everyday life or increasing exposure to violence were incompatible with Islington Labour’s values.
“We are committed to being an inclusive borough and to continue to uphold the rights, dignity, and safety of our trans residents,” O’Halloran said.
“We will work to ensure that Islington Labour provides the most inclusive services possible for all our residents under the new guidance.”
The statement also called for further government guidance on how councils can ensure residents can live safely and express their identity.
The wording is significant, but neither Thornberry nor O’Halloran explicitly said that Islington Council would disregard the Equality Act or refuse to consider the statutory code. Islington Labour, the local political organisation, is also not legally identical to the council as a public authority.
What does the new EHRC code do?
The code does not create a new Act of Parliament or impose new legal obligations. The EHRC says it provides updated guidance on how existing equality law should be understood following developments in legislation and case law.
It was revised partly in response to the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment that the words “woman”, “man” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex.
Gender reassignment remains a protected characteristic under the Act. Service providers must therefore consider protections against discrimination and harassment affecting transgender people alongside sex-based rights.
The code has statutory status because it was approved by the Secretary of State and formally laid before Parliament. It is not itself an authoritative judgment of the law, but relevant provisions can be used as evidence in legal proceedings and considered by courts and tribunals.
Single-sex and mixed-sex services
The code does not require every service to operate on a single-sex basis. It says providers should consider the needs of all potential users and whether separate or single-sex provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
In many situations, it recommends considering a mixture of single-sex and mixed-sex services. Individual lockable toilets open to everyone are given as one example of an arrangement capable of improving access without removing separate provision elsewhere.
However, the code also says that if a provider describes a service as single-sex while admitting transgender people of the opposite biological sex, it is no longer a single-sex service for the purposes of the Equality Act. It says that approach is also very likely to discriminate unlawfully against others.
Where single-sex provision is justified, the code says restrictions relating to transgender users must still be proportionate and connected to a legitimate aim. Providers should consider the impact of exclusion and whether an appropriate alternative can be offered.
The practical question for Islington
The political argument is therefore only part of the story. The practical question is how Islington Council will translate its commitment to inclusion into individual service policies while meeting its duties under the Equality Act.
Possible approaches could include maintaining justified single-sex services while adding mixed-sex or private alternatives. The correct balance will depend upon the nature of each service, its users, safety and privacy considerations, available facilities and proportionality.
No specific Islington service policy identified in O’Halloran’s statement has yet been tested against the new code. It would therefore be premature to claim that the council has decided to act unlawfully.
Similar concerns have been raised by other London councils, which have asked the Government for further protection and clarity while reviewing their practices. That suggests the implementation of the code may become a wider dispute between ministers, the equality regulator and local authorities rather than remaining a disagreement confined to Islington.
A division within Labour
Thornberry’s intervention also illustrates continuing differences within Labour over how sex-based rights and transgender protections should operate in practice.
Her statement is a clear political endorsement of Islington Labour’s concerns, but it does not change the statutory code or the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Equality Act.
The next important development will be whether Islington Council publishes revised policies explaining precisely how it intends to provide inclusive services while preserving any facilities it designates as single-sex.