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.)

This along with their behaviour - this incarnation of Labour are an embarrassment. An absolute shower. Something really needs to be done about the calibre of people who get into these positions of responsibility, this is absolutely not the UK's brightest and best. They're not even basically professional.

Hope so, they are frothing on Reddit that Baroness Falkner was lying that only people with GRCs were affected by the ruling. No, it was entirely about GRCs because they could make a tenuous claim that the lady certificate applied to the protected characteristic of sex. Other men, without GRCs, had no such potential legitimate claim, however tenuous.

Really good point.

It seemed that way.

I also suspect that they've been bombarded with emails from TRAs and, being that way inclined already, have taken up the TRA talking points about the judgment rather than, you know, reading the judgment.

These people are supposed to be making the law. That's literally their job.

So this appears to nail it. I’m part way through the session and I don’t think the committee has mentioned the word woman once.

Many committee members claim they still don’t understand the SC judgement. That will be down to a clear lack of cognitive function and not the clarity of anything. They are obviously not fit for purpose.

They are definitely using tra reasonings. The TW of thirty years who passes perfectly and shouldnt have to out themselves always makes an appearance. As do the 'intersex' people.

Huge coincidence if they came up with these gotchas independently.

Quite.

Csn we apply to give an approval rating to the WESC - especially the Chair? I’m putting nil points.

So much sympathy for the ‘plight’ of trans people from this committee.

I detected zero sympathy for Baroness Faulkner’s account of p*ss protests and rampant abuse on her, her staff and their families from the TRAs. Not a whisper.

I've just checked, because I hardly recognised any of the committee members, and they're very heavily made up of 2024 intake MPs.

I have a sense that, if the sensible Labour ministers want to drag the party back to reality, they'll have a fight with ministerial colleagues but an even bigger fight with a heavily Stonewalled intake of backbenchers.

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:

1. the ruling is in violation of Article 8 of the Human Rights act.
2. 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..
3. one way 'around' the SC ruling is to make single sexed services and spaces unisex.
4. the consultation period for interim update was too short.
5. there was inappropriate consultation during the SC case, i.e. trans people were excluded.
6. 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.

I was cheering Rosie when she mentioned it.

I think you are being generous.

The giveaway is this one

"You know, we've just had and the committee wrote to us telling us that perhaps six weeks was the appropriate length of time."

In other words, this is a PR exercise for MPs and you fucking know it.

Throughout it's a dog ate my homework problem.

MPs are perfectly capable of replying to their constituents with accurate information (they are supposed to aid and help constituents) and dispell misinformation. Had they done this instead of egging on a lot of the halfwits we wouldn't be in this mess over the SC stuff at all. Instead they've very much been part of the issue by amplifying these messages and giving them an air of legitimacy.

It's bollocks. All of it. And so much of it has been generated by those who want to make political mileage out of it. To appeal to the young 'uns. In an act of staggeringly patronising shite.

It means when this bubble bursts they are going to be caught standing with their dicks hanging out trying to look cool, when the bandwagon has firmly moved on.

But before the FWS decision the EHRC guidance on single sex spaces was very clear that having a GRC did not affect whether a trans woman could be excluded from a single sex female service - they could be excluded, with or without a GRC, if it was proportionate to do so. Given that the SC ruling was only about the legal status of people with a GRC, which is the EHRC now proposing to change its guidance to say that a single sex female service cannot lawfully admit a trans woman, with or without a GRC?

Typo - final line should have said “why is the EHRC now proposing” not “which”

Watching this, live,

All I could hear was
"what about the, men, men, men men men men
Menz hurty feels!
Men men men men men"

And then "Fuck Women, you evil Bitches "

Didn't the chair follow this up with a sort of 'there are bad people on both sides of the argument' admonishment after the p*ss protest was described?

Labour now have 403 MPs, 59 of whom identify as LGBT+. This is about 15% - a much greater proportion than would be expected from the general population.

Is there much diversity of thought in this block? Any dissenting voices?
Has the block shown alignment with UK law or Stonewall law?

To me, some members of the WEC's questions and comments seem to suggest a strong alignment with Stonewall law

I meant to ask this earlier but forget.

During that embarrassingly staged set of questions to make out the Falkner was such an appalling boss the EHRC was falling apart and all these people had left and there had been 6 directors(?) or some distortion of fact.

She was remarkably composed and made sensible comments about if people left there had to be interims, so basically it was on 3 directors(?) and one had had to leave because they had broken a or the law.

Does anyone know who that was and what law was broken.

Not sure if it was director or chief executive.

But have search and nothing comes up.

Anyone have any memory of this?

Just to add, although I think nothing will come of it, but I have emailed the WEC and asked how to make a formal complaint about the conduct of the Committee in carrying out their role as part of the House of Commons procedures.

Compare and contrast how 2 newspapers report on this shabby show.

Equalities watchdog tells trans activists personal attacks ‘have to stop’
Baroness Falkner reveals she had to cancel meeting after police warned of ‘serious risk’ of violence

and

UK equalities watchdog: transgender people may be asked about gender status in workplace
Trans people who feel they’ve lost rights should ‘distinguish between rights in law and preference for things to be a certain way’, EHCR chair said

(I'd forgetten that bit of info about meeting in Scotland having to be cancelled because of threats of violence. The EHRC is part of Government and nobody is bothered they were stopped from meeting??)

The links to the news papers are:

https://archive.is/42uUJ

https://archive.is/u00Xf

Her conduct was shameful. She is supposed to be the chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, yet it was clear she had not even looked at the judgement that was ruling on the Equalities Act. Her tone and demeanour were hostile and aggressive. There surely needs to be some way of making a complaint about this.

It was obvious that Labour and the Lib Dems were going to fill the benches with trans activists, and the current crop are no different to the last crop. They did not know what they were talking about either.

Something has to be done about this. They are bringing their role, and the committee, into disrepute.

Do you have the email address you used for that?

It strikes me that in addition to diversity training any MP should do training on the role of parliament and the role of the courts.

Then when they come out with shite like this, we can haul them over coals for their behaviour.

Why is the EHRC now proposing to change its guidance to say that a single sex female service cannot lawfully admit a trans woman, with or without a GRC?

Because of the observations made in the ruling about the operation of the single-sex exceptions. This was new information, independently of the interpretation of 'sex' and the import of the GRC.

This. I would really like to know who to write to and what can be organised by women's representatives to challenge this properly. There was NO mention of women's rights and needs, it was all wailing about poor men with no recognition at all that giving those men what they want has a very serious impact on the legal rights and equalities and needs of women. And that the protections of those women are why these men are being told No.

Constant - 'we are working so closely with and pandering to trans voices' - NOTHING as always about 'and of course with lesbian and gay groups and women's groups as the other groups affected'. And MPs entirely programmed by activists without having either read or understood the matter they are parroting downloaded thought from. And the rudeness - behaviour very few workers would get away with in the workplace.

It was absolutely bloody shameful on multiple fronts. The EHRC are there to ensure equality works - which is that the most powerful, noisy, supported group doesn't get all the rights at the expense of everyone else. That means they and MPs should be championing the excluded and silenced and unthought of. Which is blatantly obviously women and homosexual people in this.

'Marginalised communities' - give me strength. Transvestite men are not marginalised by any description whatsoever, they are the dominant class! Hence the jumping up and down in rage and peeing everywhere at being told 'no' in terms of 'you have to let other people have stuff too' and sending in pre programmed MPs who behave apparently as badly as they do.