It is huge to have the Health Secretary spell it out bluntly.
However we are already in a situation where there is a manifesto pledge to change the HRA in this country and there has been a draft drawn up on how to do this.
This government have also said that they also intend to disregard or potentially leave the ECHR in recent weeks over other issues (something I disagree with fundamentally) but should be on everyone's radar.
I also do not believe that there can't be a legal challenge which changes the implications of Goodwin V United Kingdom if there is a provable issue that a lack of safeguarding and single sex exemptions is actively harming women. Simply because thats how human rights law works in practice. It is not an immovable monolith like a giant rock thats been there for centuries. The purpose of human rights law is to prevent harm and it changes. Therefore if you can show beyond reasonable doubt there is an active problem, you can overturn previous rulings and make adjustments to prevent harm so long as the adjustments are reasonable.
If the case is made that harm is potentially being done to children because follow up research is impossible due to a ruling on privacy, then you have a good legal case for an exemption. There would need to be reasonable measures to maintain privacy, however I do think the ECHR would really struggle to rule against the government trying to prevent harm to children. It is a proportionate and legitimate aim.
We are at a stage where the NHS is likely to be sued over negligence over transing children and vulnerable adults with a lack of evidence over whether it is effective, so again the government is acting responsibly to try and a) protect children b) protect the NHS and c) resolve the clear ongoing issue over a complete lack of oversite in this sector of health care.
To put it bluntly, it would be negligent and irresponsible at this point if it DIDN'T take such steps and would only leave itself open to even more claims in the future.
Javid is actually acting with due diligence. And thats in parallel with being in a government which has an active issue with the jurisdiction of the ECHR to begin with.
And honestly, do you see any politician from any other party, actively standing up and publicly criticising over this move? There is a very good reason for the total lack of silence from politicians over a potential GRA amendment: THEY KNOW ITS NEEDED. They might make a bit of noise when it comes to a debate, but they won't make too much of a public fuss. If this comes to debate, it will be very interesting to see how many MPs show up for it, and what they say. My best guess is that many will simply be busy with constituency work or something else round about that time...