Having read through the transcript, there are a few things that I found interesting. The primary objections that have been floated so far re the SC ruling are that:
- the ruling is in violation of Article 8 of the Human Rights act.
- previous law is not superseded by the Equality Act, e.g. regulations covering bathrooms for employers, and because of that a different meaning of 'sex' should be used in those laws than that of the EA..
- one way 'around' the SC ruling is to make single sexed services and spaces unisex.
- the consultation period for interim update was too short.
- there was inappropriate consultation during the SC case, i.e. trans people were excluded.
- the 'guidance' was not clear.
With respect to #1 (Article 8) Falkner replied:
"We don't think Article 8 rights apply, neither did the supreme court, and neither has previous legal advice that we've taken on that area."
#2 (law outside the EA) Was not raised by anyone, interestingly, which i think shows the lack of preparation and understanding by the committee, especially the TRA faction. But Falkner did indirectly speak to it ( i.e. the EA is an evolution of sex-rights-based law and it would be incoherent to apply different definitions of sex to different laws):
"As I tried to explain to miss Taylor, that the Equality Act in fact, if you want to go back to the Sex Discrimination of 1975, the Equality Act building on that has always had exemptions for separate and single sex spaces."
#3 (make everything unisex) was not addressed by anyone on the committee or Falkner.
Falkner addressed the complaint about length of time for consultation without it being raised, #4, noting that it was the committee itself that suggested the time period:
"You know, we've just had and the committee wrote to us telling us that perhaps six weeks was the appropriate length of time."
#5 was not raised directly either, but Falkner did make the following statement which I think points out the fact that many of the questions Falkner was fielding would be put in a different way if placed before the people really responsible for the ruling. 😏
"I think we have a slight danger here of shooting the messenger. So the judgment was one delivered by the Supreme Court and I suggest you call five justices in front of you and challenge them on why they arrived at the decisions."
She also emphasized the fact that in all consultations the EHRC is making, they were actively seeking input from the trans community, including activists.
#6, the word 'guidance' i think is the most striking. It's clear that many of the people asking questions did not understand what the interim update was, nor did they understand that it was not 'guidance', which has a very specific definition with respect to the EHRC. The interim update served a very narrow and limited purpose. This misunderstanding was somewhat shocking, given that much of the questioning was accusatory, even implying that Falkner wasn't doing her job. Yet, they demonstrated that they didn't have a basic grasp of what that job was, at least in the context of the proceedings. And that their complaints fell outside of the scope of the interim update.
Overall I think Falkner comes out quite a bit better in the transcript than the audio. She's clear, and articulate, with an excellent grasp and presentation of the material. She expertly dealt with hostile questions with comprehensive answers.
Also, I'm inclined to be a bit more generous to the MPs adopting the TRA stance than many here. It's clear that they've received a lot of correspondence (and other interaction with constituents), and were presenting a synthesis of that to Falkner. (including channeling the outrage 😬) They could have done a better job of familiarizing themselves with the subject, but ultimately their job as elected representatives is to hold government to account. The gave Falkner a forum to address those concerns and IMO she did so extremely ably.