WEC to question the EHRC Chair and Chief Executive 11 June 2025 2:20pm

[IwantToRetire]

The Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) will question the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Baroness Falkner of Margravine in Parliament on Wednesday, 11 June during its annual scrutiny session of the EHRC.

Venue: The Thatcher Room, Portcullis House
Watch live: Visit parliamentlive.tv Women and Equalities Committee

The Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) will question the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Baroness Falkner of Margravine in Parliament on Wednesday, 11 June during its annual scrutiny session of the EHRC.

MPs on the cross-party committee, chaired by Labour MP Sarah Owen, will discuss the EHRC’s work and resources and wider equalities policy, including the implications of the For Women Scotland Supreme Court judgment and the EHRC’s subsequent consultation on the Code of Practice.

The Committee will hear from the EHRC’s Chief Executive, John Kirkpatrick, alongside Baroness Falkner.

Witnesses
Starting at 2.20pm
Baroness Kishwer Falkner of Margravine, Chair, Equality and Human Rights Commission
John Kirkpatrick, Chief Executive, Equality and Human Rights Commission

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/news/207403/wec-to-question-the-ehrc-chair-and-chief-executive/

(I came across this by chance whilst looking for a date for the WEC interview with Mary-Ann Stephenson but could find nothing - anybody know when it will be.)

SionnachRuadh · Today 16:58
Key questions and answers from the earlier ministers' evidence session - no prizes for guessing who asked them:
Thank you for this, Sionnach.

Am I being hopelessly Polyanna-ish in noting that the answers given by both Dodds and Philipson to questions about sex-based rights including single-sex provision did NOT contain the word 'trans', or hand-wringing about whatever we do we must not distress the fragile transfolx..

I think that's an improvement - I'm pretty sure the same answers before the SC ruling would have included something about protecting trans people's rights.

Absolutely.

I guess that when presented with the option to throw women and girls or TRAs under the bus, MPs will always go with the ones less likely to turn up and your place of work and pour urine over each other.

Hopefully, as PP says, just signaling

Edit, spelling

Although I dont normally want to have to think about it, am quite glad that there were references made in a HoC committee about bottles of urine being left.

Almost makes you think men think their urine is intimidating and likely to induce fear.

Marking territory?

Ultimately they are CONTINUING to lie to transpeople. This isn't kind. This is self serving grifting by the MPs. It's not in the interests of anyone but the MPs.

Yes indeed!

Yes that was fudged wasn't it?

At one point (I think it was Falkner) referred to less than 9,000 people impacted by this, but nobody then moved onto the next obvious point which is how to corrent the misinformation about all those who self id, claim non binary, or whatever who have no legal status.

Although the fact of the tiny number was then used against sex based rights by saying it is so few what's the fuss.

Well because on not just those who Stonewall have led to believe they have a legal status, but all the organisations etc., who have also taken as fact Stonewall Law.

I agree and I think several of them were being quite disingenuous on this point. The people they are talking about are not necessarily going to have GRCs but I imagine they’d rather not touch on the fact that they were not the subject of this court case, that part had already been established early on when the Scottish government lost the first round.

I liked this bit...
Sarah Owen MP:
“You didn’t answer my question - there is an issue around reputation and trust for EHRC, are you doing anything to improve that?”
Kishwer Falkner:
“In the first year of my service, approval / positive sentiment rating was 35%, it’s currently 81%”

.. there is an issue around reputation and trust for EHRC many MPs ..

There’s an issue around reputation and trust for the WESC too from where I’m standing. Or there would be if they were relevant in any way.

It's a bit embarrassing that they're called the Women and Equalities Committee, when you end up with a committee comprised of women (plus one gay man) who overwhelmingly think the job of the EHRC is to make sure that men who want to be women don't feel sad.

Take my hat off to Baroness Falkner for keeping her cool throughout.

I'm not sure I can bear to watch their hearing next week with Laura Bates talking about the manosphere - I'm not a huge fan of LB - but it might be interesting to see if they know what a woman is in a context where they don't feel they need to pander to TRAs.

It's another example of capture where the 'women' part is all about 'TWAW (and the only ones who matter)'.

Sex Matters or another group really need to get on this and pressure that the women's brief and the equalities (grim laugh, there is only ONE group that means), must be split. They are now in direct conflict.

Mic drop moment.

Honestly these MPs are horrendous. They are creating and spreading the disinformation rather than debunking it or trying to act to change the law which would be the correct course of action if they genuinely wanted to do what they say they believe in.

They don't.

However you cut it they are liars and they know it.

It's dishonest.

Meanwhile they are the same bunch of people wondering why bloody Reform is doing so well in the polls. I just find it insane.

Jaw drop moment.

The chair's question that led up to those stats was actually phrased -
"I don't think it is up for discussion as to whether there is an issue around reputation and trust of the EHRC at the moment, particularly in the last few years [Falkner has been in post for 4.5 years]. Are you doing anything to improve that in your last six months? If not, just say that you're not."

This was very near the beginning of the session. The chair sets the tone. This was extraordinarily rude and unprofessional. How can the government find this level of discourse acceptable?

Just got to the bit where Rebecca is saying something about how clear the judgement was and how the guidance needs the same clarity and then says 'sorry, that was a statement, not a question'.
Does anybody else hear the chair (?) say, sotto voce: 'that's not what we're here for'?

Rebecca’s interventions were great.

Are there really strict rules about the 'form' of how you can speak at these kinds of meetings? Because if I was there and across my subject I don't know how I'd hold my tongue and not say something like what redtoothbrush said: 'are you all cynical or stupid?' (and you weren't elected to be either!)
And Rebecca having to say 'with respect' more than once when correcting the chair - is it a form of speech you have to use?

I've just finished listening/watching. I'm sort of glad Ive been doing other things at the same time so wasn't fully immersed as if I had been paying complete attention I think I'd be raging.

I may be wrong, but I found the panel asking questions to be rather annoying, seemingly not on top of the subject, idiots.

I may be wrong, but I found the panel asking questions to be rather annoying, seemingly not on top of the subject, idiots.

I suspect it was orchestra by the Labour majority who thought they had come up with clever questions that would somehow trip Falkner into wrong speech or whatever.

And if that was the case it just illustrates that on one level they have no in depth knowledge. They just want to score points with their TRA puppet masters!

I've just watched the clips posted by Sex Matters. That's the first time I've heard Sarah Owen speak. She really is Smuggy,McSmugface isn't she? How embarrassing that she clearly hasn't read the judgement.

I haven’t had time to watch this yet.

What I found interesting about retired Judge McCloud on BBC Newscast was that several times they clearly ring-fenced the c10,000 people with a GRC. Almost as though they were “true trans”.

As we know one of the reasons Stonewall etc. probably didn’t apply to intervene in the SC case was because the case was only about those people who have a GRC. It had already been established no GRC = sex recorded at birth.

Retired Judge McCloud is trying to appeal to the ECHR on the basis they now have two sexes. One is biological the other is as recorded on their birth certificate (changed by a GRC). To be fair it is nonsense but it is also potentially going to see GRC holders arguing they are different to non GRC holders. The internal fall out could be epic.

Interestingly, the Chair had no problem with the initial question about a women’s rambling group including men (but only those men who claim to be women). She didn’t admonish that MP and say that her question about walking groups had nothing to do with the SC decision. Maybe they thought people would imagine images of the fragrant (bollocks) of ‘Myrtle’ and ‘Petunia’ in tweed skirts revelling in floating o’er the hills with other ladies.

The sporting question was more real about the impact on women. A ‘Southpark’ image of a burly bloke in 1st place, with possibly bruised women in 2nd and 3rd were too close to home. Not to mention the testimonies of women in swimming; with males being allowed to expose themselves to them in the changing room, and males also enabled to commit voyeurism on the women. All without consent. Raises a few uncomfortable realities about the consequences for women.

The internal fall out could be epic.

I think on one level this has already happened but maybe in a subdued way. ie the earlier group of people who got GRCs.

And I dont think they have a very loud voice or would be listened to.

And probably, even though the whole wide coalition of identities, self whatever would not want to believe they have been conned by Stonewall would, a bit like the WEC, therefore blame everybody else but the group who misled them. ie continue to say the law is wrong and what they say (demand) is the law!