NHS Policy Audit - working party

[KnottyAuty]

Following on from Thread #23 of the Peggie v NHS Employment Tribunal. Anyone who wants to help with survey/audit of paperwork against the Equality Act protected characteristics please join here 😊

@KnottyAuty, one more thing for your summary: EqIAs for trans-specific policies tended to only look at impact on trans people, not any other protected group.

I feel I may have said that in a pp - apologies if I’m repeating myself.

You are clearly an anarchist! 😂

I actually have time off over Easter and am staying with friends who will actually pull together with me over the housework (unlike other people I can mention - looks meaningfully at DH and kids) so will probably have some time. Happy to plug away with research then upload it when the rest of you return nice and rested.

I very much like the idea of doing the Darlington (and surrounding region) data analysis in the run up to the Darlington nurses court case.

It is worth saying again tho - thanks because it easy to get habituated to - there being no consideration at all of the requirements of the female sex amongst all the hypnotic and exotic trans terminology and complicated rules distracting everyone....

And I'd add that I haven't actually seen any of these policies go to a Full EqIA... have you?

What I have generally seen are "Screenings" which are technically stage 1 and should be used to assess those policies which affect others and therefore need more detailed consideration. You would think that something this controversial should have been assessed to within an inch of its life? But no.

So I'm fairly sure that - for a policy this controversial - not being able to find any full/stage 2 EqIAs anywhere is unlawful. Any lawyers want to chime in on this?

It's a very relevant issue. I think dating back to the mess of the Welsh Parliament EqIA that a MNetter did extensive FOI requests for, it was apparent that they had been advised by a trans-specific group or trainer that the way to do EqIAs was to consider each of the nine characteristics only as they applied to trans people. Trainers/advisors clearly had no idea or understanding of what EqIAs were for or how to do them, and agencies who did not know or understand EqIAs either just downloaded this thinking without checking facts.

At a bare minimum it seems an Equality impact assessment should consider the impact of any new policy on all the protected characteristics (as written in law, not made up). Otherwise, what is the point?

One further comment on the EIAs - the vast majority I have seen (and these are screenings) replace sex with gender, even if sex is accurately listed in the main body of the policy. I’m either seeing “GENDER” (not sex), or “SEX (GENDER)” or even “SEX (GENDER IDENTITY)”. So our protected characteristic has become, to all intents and purposes, simply a second opportunity to consider everything through a gender ideology lens.

@umbel that is completely correct. Often they will list the protected characteristics but as soon as you get into the documents where they look at this in practise se is replaced by gender every time.

When you consider that to request that sex based needs are regarded seperately as something different to gender is 'transphobic' according to the training and the resulting policy guidance and paperwork in place?

It becomes even more apparent that it is fundamentally incompatible with both the following of the law and with the duty of impartiality in service provision for a service to engage with this ideology.

Anyone seen this new law and thought about its implications for single sex spaces?
https://www.acas.org.uk/sexual-harassment/steps-for-employers-to-prevent-sexual-harassment#:~:text=What%20the%20law%20says,effect%20on%2026%20October%202024.

It seems fairly obvious that what happened to the Darlington Nurses and Sandie Peggie (and all her female colleagues) and indeed anyone female who sees an undressed male in a 'single sex' deceitfully labelled space potentially falls foul of this law.

However, since so many organisations have shown themselves willing to quite blatantly break the law already (sorry 'get ahead of' the law) presumably they'll just ignore this too? What are the consequences of not adhering to the law?

I suppose it's extra ammunition for all the poor women bringing employment tribunals. I don't know if it's too late for SP and the Darlington nurses - probably not given the men in question are presumably still using the women's changing rooms? Or can ETs only look at historical issues before the ET was brought?

The stupid argument of 'getting ahead of the law' is something I'm looking forward to criminals using in court. "I wasn't stealing the car, i was getting ahead of the law in terms of a redistribution of wealth" etc.

Its an interesting line of argument to unpack and I hope we'll see it in those cases. It can only not be sexual harassment if the women involved are willing to engage in the fiction that these men are not men, and that is not compulsory. So the women who do not consent to perform believing this fiction are being exposed to men that they perceive in the same way as they would perceive any other men.

The 'but what about lesbians' argument holds no water; it's not about whether or not the person beside you may fancy you. It's about women not being required to expose their bodies to men, and that is not in doubt. Its just a case of wangling that these men are different to those men. Objectively there is no difference in experience for a woman according to what a man claims is in his mind at the time.

The 'getting ahead of the law' bit harks back to Local Authorities at the time of New Labour's first year or two when policy was coming on line and practice was shifting to accommodate the changes. It has been appropriated on the idea of 'get them all doing it so it's normal practice and the law will then have to 'catch up' to fit the practice. It was a way of enforcing conformity with gender ideology and it may be somewhere in the Denton Playbook. I'm fairly sure Whittle has talked on record about this at some point. There is currently no accountability for not following the law, and questions could reasonably be asked about why we're paying MPs to sit and discuss law at great tax payer expense when there's no enforcement or accountability and the actual practice is whatever political lobby currently can market and capture it to be. Likewise questions around safeguarding when capture can be this successful. Obviously it's only a matter of time before the next political lobby arise and use the same blueprint to their own agenda.

Another interesting section from this consultation doc (my bold):

We want patients to feel confident asking for care that meets their needs and preferences, including requests for intimate care to be carried out by someone of the same sex. We also want patients to have confidence that any such request will be accommodated, where reasonably possible.

Same-sex care is recognised through accompanying CQC statutory guidance to the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The guidance sets out how providers should act when providing intimate or personal care, and make every reasonable effort to make sure that they respect people’s preferences about who delivers their care and treatment, such as requesting staff of a specific sex. We are defining sex as biological sex.

We are defining intimate care as an examination of breasts, genitalia or rectum, and care tasks of an intimate nature such as helping someone use the toilet or changing continence pads. This definition aligns with that used by the General Medical Council.

The NHS Constitution does not currently reference same-sex intimate care. We want to introduce a new pledge to reinforce NHS healthcare providers’ responsibilities to accommodate requests of this nature where reasonably possible.

We propose adding a pledge to ‘Access to health services’ to state that:
Patients can request intimate care be provided, where reasonably possible, by someone of the same biological sex.

Of course, they are going to have to define biological sex if Dr Upton et al persist with their definition🙄

And also 'sex' to replace 'gender':

Technical changes to reflect the Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 establishes protection by references to the characteristic of sex as defined in the act. We therefore propose to change the language in the NHS Constitution from ‘gender’ to ‘sex’ to align with legislation where appropriate.........

.......Under principle 1, the NHS Constitution currently sets out that:
It is available to all irrespective of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status.....

.....Under ‘Access to health services’, the NHS Constitution currently sets out that:You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status.

We propose changing the language from ‘gender’ to ‘sex’, ‘religion, belief’ to ‘religion or belief’, and ‘marital or civil partnership status’ to ‘marriage and civil partnership status’ so that the amended text reads as follows.
Under principle 1:
It is available to all irrespective of sex, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marriage and civil partnership status.
Under access to health services:
You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of sex, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marriage and civil partnership status.

Great work, vipers.

GOSH at least put the glaring inconsistency front and centre in their same sex accommodation policy:

11.1 Same-sex accommodation standards must be adhered to for all young people admitted to the Trust as outlined in this policy.
11.2 Trans and gender variant young people should be accommodated according to their self-defined gender or presentation e.g. the way they dress, and the name and pronouns that they currently use. This does not always accord with the physical sex appearance of the chest or genitalia.
11.3 Non-binary individuals, who do not identify as being male or female, should be asked discreetly about their preferences, and allocated according to their choice, in the most clinically appropriate environment, ensuring privacy and dignity is maintained.
11.4 In some instances, parents or those with parental responsibility may have a view that is not consistent with the young person’s view. If possible, the young person’s preference should prevail even if they are not Gillick competent.

How anyone reads that and doesn't explode from the cognitive dissonance is beyond me!

Constitution review can't come quickly enough!

11.4 In some instances, parents or those with parental responsibility may have a view that is not consistent with the young person’s view. If possible, the young person’s preference should prevail even if they are not Gillick competent.

That is outrageous. If they are not Gillick competent they cannot consent to treatment. They aren't mature enough to take decisions so their parents & doctors need to act in the child's best interests not pander to their delusion.

'Non-binary individuals, who do not identify as being male or female, should be asked discreetly about their preferences, and allocated according to their choice"

Jesus Christ and the wee donkey.

Well once everyone's aware of this they'll ALL be non-binary so they can choose, right? Who wants to be a boring normie when that means YOUR preferences are disregarded and you're considered a resource to be used for the validation of others.

None of this resolves the glaring most obvious fact that at some point the wishes of different people will conflict. What do they do then? (we can probably guess).

Oh yes it was clear from the Scottish policies that if you want a private room, you should present as non-binary - blue hair anyone?

Apart from anything if all us ahem more mature women go non binary it will kill the movement stone dead. Everyone knows that when mums are down with it, it is no longer quite so appealing 🤣

Look at this EqIA which is about transitioning at work and time off being permitted from work from 2019. This is the first full and thorough EqIA that I have seen and it's not been prepared by the NHS.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/gender_identity_and_intersex_mod_2/response/2847838/attach/4/190710%20Gender%20Identity%20and%20Intersex%20Equality%20Analysis%201.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

See the very bottom of page 4:
We amended an early draft which had suggested that managers may consider objections to transgender individuals using what other employees perceive not to be the correct facilities as a disciplinary matter. We ultimately considered encouraging the use of disciplinary policies to deal with sincerely-held objections to be disproportionate and unlikely to foster good relations. However, we would expect objections to be raised using the correct channels. We would expect managers to deal with objections raised in an inappropriate manner or using inappropriate language to be handled as they would in any other context, i.e., potentially under the disciplinary process.

But also interesting/useful quotes all the way through.

Morning @KnottyAuty I have now got the transgender policy from London Ambulance [after almost a week] I haven't had a chance to read it yet but will do later and I will redo the jot form for this trust.

Quite a hilltop. Dismisses inconvenient impacts.

Also: Only public sector would say no problem and no detriment to colleagues if trans and intersex people take time off. Honestly, who would want a trans person on their work team if they are trying to get a job done. And only the unaccountable bottomless pit of public sector funding can afford them.

Thanks! Instead can you email it to me please? I'll dm you - uploading some extra items to the existing entry is easier than sorting out a duplicate.

I also thought that about the time off.

But I did like that this is a civil service policy stating that disciplinary action for GC views is not appropriate. We should be shouting that part from the hilltops!

Obviously in an office setting where there are far fewer high risk encounters it is easier to brush this off, but if other settings use this format, it is much more difficult for them to tick the no impact box.

I wonder if we should draft our own EqIAs for the NHS using this structure and "get ahead of the regulator" in encouraging public bodies to adopt it?