Timeline of efforts to sabotage the EHRC’s work to protect everyone’s rights

“We wrote to Stonewall in March to let them know that we would not be renewing our membership, and this has now expired.”

Karon Monaghan KC, representing the EHRC, argues that the original tribunal the employment judge “adopted the wrong approach when determining whether the Claimant’s [‘gender critical’] belief fell within the scope of s.10 of the Equality Act”.

Kishwer Falkner says: “Defending the right to believe that sex is immutable in no way impacts on our commitment to uphold the rights of trans people.”

EHRC, represented by Karon Monaghan KC were right about the law.

It raises concerns about the potential consequences of self ID and says:
“We consider that more detailed consideration is needed before any change is made to the provisions in the Act. The potential consequences include those relating to the collection and use of data, participation and drug testing in competitive sport, measures to address barriers facing women, and practices within the criminal justice system, inter alia.”

It recommends that legislation should initially focus on banning conversion therapy attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation and that legislation to ban conversion therapy attempting to change a person to or from being transgender should follow “once more detailed and evidence-based proposals are available which can be properly scrutinised”.

EHRC says: “We are pleased that the Sub-Committee on Accreditation assessed evidence of our independence and effectiveness and upheld our position, declining a special review of our work.

“As we launch our new strategy, we are reaching out to organisations that have been critical of the EHRC, encouraging them to put aside past disagreements and to work with us and other like-minded organisations to protect everyone and to achieve a fairer society for all.”

The guidance confirms that it is lawful and legitimate to provide female-only spaces and therefore to exclude men who identify as women from them. 

This follows a routine assessment. The assessment report includes recommendations that the EHRC:
• widens its human rights protection mandate
continues to address human rights issues across all relevant areas
• cooperates with civil society organisations
ensures pluralism and diversity in its board membership
• advocates for formalising the selection and appointment process of our Commissioners
• advocates for amendments regarding the provisions for dismissal of Commissioners
• advocates for greater financial autonomy from central government 

The Board welcomed and noted the paper, including the legal and policy issues that arise from the drafting of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to the concepts of sex, gender, and gender reassignment and interaction with the GRA and     whether and how the EHRC can seek to clarify the law, convene debate on the balance of rights, and support decision-making.

This appears to be the board meeting in which response to BBC Women’s Hour calling final with Emma Haslett “all-women” Baroness Falkner was been accused of calling trans-identified male, Emma Laslett, a ‘bloke in lipstick’ (she has said in interviews she was reporting what was being said about Laslett).

 
Dscussed “the increasing contestation of how the term sex in understood in law and in practice. Recent cases in both the English and Scottish Courts, such as Fair Play for Women Ltd. v UK Statistics Authority [2021] EWHC 940 and For Women Scotland Ltd [2022] CSOH 90, have raised legitimate questions about the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010. ” (referred to in Letter on 21st Feb)

 
The Board discussed the additional legal advice relating to the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010. The Board agreed that the Commission should advise the Government on the definition of sex in the Equality Act, subject to a further special Board meeting to be held before 30 March, to discuss the wider implications, communications and stakeholder considerations, and to take note of their consultation on this matter with the statutory Scotland and Wales Committees.

 
Requests considered advice from the EHRC on the benefits or otherwise of an amendment to the 2010 Act on the current definition of ‘sex’, along with any connected or consequential enactments, bearing in mind the advantages and disadvantages that such a change might entail for affected groups.

 
Minutes from Scotland and Wales committees show they oppose clarifying the Equality Act

The Chairwoman proposed that she write to the Chair of the Scotland and Wales Committee ssetting out why the Board was not able to accept their advice and why the Board had reached the conclusions it had. Commissioners agreed this approach.
 
The Board then discussed the recommended response from the Commission to the 21 February 2023 letter from the Minister for Women and Equalities. A small group of Commissioners considered that the draft letter was an acceptable starting point, subject to some amendments. However, following discussion, a majority of Commissioners favoured a substantially revised letter to be agreed at the next Board meeting.

Board finalises letter. All Commissioners bar one were in favour of sending the letter, as amended, to the Minister.

“A change to the Equality Act 2010, so that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ means biological sex, could bring clarity in a number of areas, but potential ambiguity in others.
“Our response to the Minister’s request for advice suggests that the UK Government carefully identify and consider the potential implications of this change.
“Should they wish to pursue work in this area, we recommend detailed policy and legal analysis be undertaken, in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty and with due regard to any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.”