The patience of saints ECHR compliant Policy Writing thread for Civil Servants, Third Sector and HR people.

Agree thoroughly with PP saying how difficult it can be to do meaningful public engagement / consultation and how certain demographics are overlooked / under-represented. This isn't just a problem in the sex realism area either - the local consultations for LTNs in my nearest city were really poor in that they excluded a huge demographic of people travelling into the city to work, and totally ignored impacts on this large group of people. Caveat that this is as far as I can tell - I gave up on trying to provide input after a while, because it was taking far too long and was too complicated and obviously I wasn't getting paid and decided quite quickly I was unlikely to influence anything.

At the very least documents should be clear and easy to understand so that if members of the public wish to participate they can do so. I remember attending many training sessions about writing in 'plain English' in my youth (!). But the NHS has not only NOT used 'plain English' it has unilaterally, and without telling anyone, redefined the meaning of basic words. 'Woman', 'man', 'single-sex' and 'harassment' would be my top 4 words that the NHS (in general) uses in a different way than the average person in this country.

So the average person has no hope of reading their policies and understanding what they mean in practice.

Whilst in some policies terms are defined, it's pretty clear those meanings then carry across to other policies where terms AREN'T defined. Particularly the new mixed-sex meanings of 'man' and 'woman'.

Sadly, I agree.

Well they're one of the two obvious groups within the protected characteristic of sex.

My point was more that there aren't 'nine groups', there are 'nine protected characteristics'.

The problem is women won't be seen as relevant (again).

I've never seen one that actually identified an impact let alone proposed a change to what was planned.

I'm an analyst and I agree wholeheartedly. Linking this here re data collection and statistics in case you haven't already read it:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-data-statistics-and-research-on-sex-and-gender/review-of-data-statistics-and-research-on-sex-and-gender-executive-summary

There should be two “formats”.

The first should be a “screening” to consider what impacts might affect which groups. If there are any negative impacts then proceed to step 2 for those affected.

A full EqIA then looks in more detail at the affected PCs. With evidence and consultation. That’s the difficult bit?!

Principle 1
Any revised policy under the Equality Act should involve a written audit that has considered the rights of each of the nine groups with protected characteristics, outlining the advantages, detriments and neutrality of a proposed policy.

Please may I suggest a tweak to your first principle OP? I think it should refer to having considered the rights of ALL RELEVANT GROUPS WITHIN EACH OF THE NINE PROTECTED CHARACTERISTICS rather than nine groups.

It's a great idea for a thread - thanks for starting it. Lots of thought-provoking posts - and lots of scope to take it further.

Does anyone have an example of a good EqIA which maybe work as a good base for others to be developed from?

The Royal Marsden had a good description of each of the 9 protected characteristics.

But it’s the evidence base & consultation stuff which would be good to see for - say - a changing room…

Bump. There is such a lot of good work on this thread! I do hope it finds a wider readership.

Guidance should be owned by the organisation publishing it. If it is written by a lobby group it should be clear that this is their view and not organisational or Government policy.

I’ve been doing a review of Dept of Health guidance on eliminating mixed sex wards over on the audit thread. It’s astonishing how much Dept of Health guidance in 2007/8 was actually written by trans lobby groups, much of it driven by Christine Burns of Press For Change.

From what I can see, this is where ‘getting ahead of the law’ and ‘trans people can choose their own toilet/ward/bathroom’ became official NHS policy.

Im finding this thread fascinating - so agree - thank you

A really simple thing. Policies should list protected characteristics exactly as they appear in the equalities act.

Following this, they should describe discrimination against these same characteristics.

I have seen organisations add in extra descriptors to explain discriminatory practices. IE By saying we will not discriminate against you because of your sex, age, gender reassignment, etc etc and then add random but well meaning things such as caring responsibilities.

Organisations shouldn't change the wording if the protected characteristics. IE the policy below replaces sex with gender and then starts talking about non binary people.

www.inspirationtrust.org/1430/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-statement

In other words equalities policies should stick to the law.

I was thinking more about local issues I suppose. So for example where the NHS wants to stop providing services in a particular location and move them somewhere else. There may be transport & parking issues that affect people with disabilities for example. If a hospital wants to change anything about gynae or maternity services, it is the voices of local women that need to be amplified, not a lobby group whose primary aim is to police people’s language.

With regard to public consultations, surely the public of Lancashire don’t have a wildly different opinion to the public of Cardiff. So for many of these issues, one national consultation would get a clear set of answers and be much more efficient than 200 local consultations with 5 people, 3 of whom come from a lobby group.

Having been involved in service and policy development in the NHS in the past, another point that I would add is that it can be challenging to do meaningful public consultation and engage service users. The pool of people available to attend meetings mostly excludes those with full time jobs and so it is not uncommon for consultation to be conducted with connected charities and voluntary groups plus willing retirees. To be clear, this isn’t always a bad thing and I have personally worked with some brilliant dedicated people and organisations who have rightly challenged NHS thinking and identified flaws in our plans. However, excluding working people can lead to skewed decisions and make it easier for lobby groups like Stonewall to get a seat at the table. The public body needs to tick the public consultation box and SW have been available and only too willing to “help”.

So I think I would want to see something that improves public consultation. A minimum period of online availability would be a starting point, plus some sort of system of alerts so that the public know about them. This would be weighted towards the views of people who live in the areas affected and not national organisations.

And I don’t know how it would work in practice, but the relevant body would need to meaningfully consider the views raised in any public consultation - not ignore them.

I guess the policy point should be that when issuing statements to the public or staff or clients etc, you should consider its effects on people with all the different protected characteristics. Not just the group you're aiming at.

There's a reason why large organisation usually issue bland statements.

@CatietteX - It's not strictly a policy but it's worth bearing in mind that one-sided statements could contribute to a hostile environment and be used against the organisation in a discrimination case.

And here's a model response (for NHS) which @redtoothbrush re-wrote from the offensively unbalanced real response:

They should be saying "We understand that the ruling has caused distress to some and is an acknowledgement that the rights of others have not always been upheld as they should have within the law. We stress the law has not changed; we remain committed to equality for all and will work with all parties to uphold equality of all staff. If you have any concerns or feel this has affected you in anyway please speak to HR. All concerns will be dealt with discreetly. We understand that this affects a large number of people in different ways. The trust understands that the privacy and dignity of all staff and patients remains paramount. Going forward our focus is on providing high quality standards of care for patients and ensuring all staff feel safe in their work environment. We expect all staff to remain professional and to treat others with respect and be sensitive to all surrounding this subject. We will issue updated guidance as soon as possible".

I made a note because it was well balanced and respectful all round and could be adapted for use by employers, universities etc. if they need to make a statement.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5317262-what-my-nhs-trust-have-said-about-the-supreme-court-verdict?reply=143628525

What’s emerging tho is that they didn’t just accept it - they’ve swallowed it whole and seem proud to embody a celebration of trans-ness. And an enthusiasm for stazi style thought policing. I just can’t get my head around it - so I find it really scary. I’ve lived my whole life in a society which was becoming more liberal over time. I read about stuff like the Salem Witch Trials or 1930s Germany and thought that sort of stuff didnt apply to the modern age. But it seems like human nature doesn’t change… and the internet seems to act like an accelerant. This is group think on a monumental scale…

Any public sector body should not just assume that any group that purports to represent a particular demographic actually does represent that demographic and job done on consultation and research without the need to get wider grassroots opinion / evidence / facts. Before they listen to any group they need to scrutinise that group's motivations and aims.

So Stonewall does not represent many LGB these days (particularly lesbians) and there are many so-called 'Feminist' groups that don't represent a large number of women / most average women.

It's been lazy for organisations to just accept Stonewall's word, and illegal. They must learn from this.

Bump.