Someone posted this response from their Lib Dem MP on Reddit. Toxic debate/culture wars comments aside, he seems a lot more sensible than other Lib Dem MPs:
Re: Equality & Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) draft updated Code of Practice
Thank you for contacting me with regard to the Equality & Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) draft updated Code of Practice which the Government has now laid before Parliament. I am receiving correspondence from those both in favour of the guidance as published & from those who have concerns about its content.
As a father of four daughters I am fully supportive of women's rights and, along with them & my wife, feel the debate regarding trans rights has become unduly toxic. My intention has always been to support the rule of law in creating a society in which everyone can live their lives safely and in dignity.
Last April, the Supreme Court delivered a ruling on the Equality Act 2010. As with all Supreme Court decisions, the Liberal Democrats accept & respect this judgement. As a lawyer I am strongly supportive of a ruling which rightly upholds the plain wording of the legislation i.e. that sex & gender reassignment are separate protected characteristics under the Equality Act. And, whilst there is often no conflict between these separate but related rights, that is not always the case, as in Women’s sport for example.
A code of practice does not enact new law but simply provides guidance on how to abide by existing law. If one accepts the Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act, it is illogical to call for the withdrawal of a code that merely provides practical guidance on how to comply with that Act; unless it can be demonstrated that the code is wrong in law. No one criticising the code has yet been able to give me any example of such a failing. I consequently share the concerns of the EHRC chair, Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, that too many critics appear to believe that ‘somehow if they stop the Code passing then they will change the law’. As she makes clear ‘the law will remain the same, whether or not the code becomes statutory’.
Unfortunately every critic of the code I have encountered appears to be engaged, not in critiquing the code, but in a proxy battle against the Supreme Court judgement itself. In my view, if one wishes to change the law one should be explicit about doing so. Currently the only political parties planning such a course of action are Reform and Restore, both of whom advocate repealing the Equality Act 2010.
I know many will be determining how this guidance affects them, their family & friends. My party has been clear from the start that the EHRC’s final guidance must be workable and provide as much clarity as possible to individuals, businesses & service providers about their responsibilities. In doing so it is important to note the practical application of law to real-life situations is often a complex matter. As a university academic & lawyer I often said to my students the application of law is not black & white because life is not black & white.
The issue of public lavatories has been raised with me a number of times. After considering the matter in detail I am satisfied the code addresses (in so far as the current state of the law allows), what is sometimes described as, ‘the bathroom ban’ by making clear a trans person should not be excluded from using any provision when only single sex facilities are available (13.148). And, whilst the code states that it might not always be appropriate for a trans person to use a facility coinciding with their biological sex (13.145), maintains that exceptions, allowing someone of the opposite sex to use a single sex service, are permissible - if that is necessary to provide the necessary flexibility (13.135). I consequently do not believe there is any situation where it would be permissible under the code to ever deny a trans person access to public toilet facilities.
The issue of the puberty blockers Pathway Trial has also been raised with me. I share the concerns of many at the previous practice of clinics, such as the Tavistock, in giving puberty blockers to halt the natural onset of puberty in children. That is why I fully support the Cass Report which brought a halt to that practice. Despite attempts to undermine her by critics who sought to defend the ill-advised methods of the Tavistock, and other such clinics, Professor Cass is a leading expert whose advice I respect. Thus, despite my private misgiving about the Pathways Trial that she recommended, I do not feel it is permissible to pick & choose between the recommendations in her Report. To do so only gives credence to those seeking to undermine her credibility.
I recognise the legitimacy of complaints regarding the delay in delivering the guidance. We know the draft Code of Practice was first submitted to the Government in October but has now only been laid before Parliament in May, following unacceptable additional prevarication & leaks to the press. Instead of clarity, these delays have increased suspicion and sowed uncertainty in the minds of the public & obstructed service providers seeking to fulfil their statutory duties.
Parliament will of course need to assess how the guidance works in practice. I am consequently keen to ensure there is scrutiny, & assessment made, of its real world impact. In that regard I will write to Bridget Phillipson, the Equalities Minister, to ask her what plans her Department has
to ensure application of the code is monitored;
what she is doing to address the potential issues raised in the Risk Assessment; and
what opportunities stakeholders will have to give feedback to the Government & the EHRC.
It is vital the original Supreme Court judgement, and now this draft guidance, are not used to compound already divisive culture wars. Unfortunately some of the reporting and comments following the ruling have sowed confusion and further inflamed the debate. I believe this draft guidance implementing the Supreme Court judgement, alongside the recent Cass report, are positive developments that will help move the debate forward to ensure everyone’s safety & dignity is upheld under the law.
I appreciate my comments above may not please all of those who have written to me but I wanted to make clear my position.
With best wishes.
Yours ever,
Paul
Paul Kohler
Member of Parliament for Wimbledon