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 😊

Midwife

"congratulations @KnottyAuty you have a baby. What gender do they identify as?"

“The NHS Confederation is the membership organisation that brings together, supports and speaks for the whole healthcare system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland”

Maybe… but that’s not entirely the impression one might get from the hierarchy of information:

Guidance Document 104 pages:
https://www.nhsconfed.org/system/files/2023-09/Leading-for-all-supporting-trans-non-binary-healthcare-staff-Sept-23.pdf
Begrudgingly acknowledges Forstatter and GC from the POV that these people shouldn’t harass or degrade trans people. Balancing Views section is far from balanced. What the law says section consists of redefining the legal terms to suit gender identity. Single sex segregation is acknowledged but indirectly and not dealing with alternative POVs or protected characteristics.

Trans and LGBTQ+ issues listed as the most important topic ahead of finance, patient care, social inequalities etc:
https://www.nhsconfed.org/topic

Some information on race. None on disability or other characteristics. A lot on prevention of sexual harassment without any mention of possible conflict with the trans positive policies

Just a completely weird over prioritising of a tiny group above all else including actual healthcare. Odd

This is a really interesting if disturbing thread - thank you very much @KnottyAuty for setting it in motion.

A lot of what has been uncovered so far is that many of the documents reviewed have either been drafted by trans activists, or drafted by NHS staff who have accepted copy and unbalanced input from trans activists, and uncritically repeated it for documents which have gone on to be published by the NHS Trusts they work for.

if there has been further review or sign off of these policies and documents by Trust executives, it’s not evident in the few documents I have looked at (but perhaps they are not typical ).

So this state of affairs might be the result of autonomous EDI officers in the Trusts, left to do what they want over the last few years. Trusts’ Boards still carry the responsibility though, and they don’t seem to have been stepping up to it.

Suspect there will be ferocious reverse-ferreting from NHS Trust Boards soon, with junior staff thrown to the wolves.

I have come to the same conclusion based on the policies I have seen.
We have 5 of the scottish trusts in the spreadsheet - I am itching to get the remaining 9 in there so we can get an overall picture.
So far, so unlawful!

Edited to add - I'd eventually love to know how many trusts across the UK have used that "swashbuckler" policy

@KnottyAuty Your point is well made about the unlawfulness of what is going on.
NHS Trusts’ lawyers don’t seem to have been keeping tabs, I don’t excuse the Trust Boards, but their lawyers have not been earning their keep.

I wonder how typical the NHS Fife case is? It is inconceivable that Trust lawyers were not advising on the decision to proceed to the Tribunal, and apparently there was no attempt to settle out of court beforehand. A disciplinary meeting to sack Nurse Peggie a week or so after the original Tribunal end date was already in diaries, so it looks as if they were anticipating an easy win.

How could the Board and their lawyers have been so out of touch with what was happening in their organisation, and that they weren’t lawful? Notwithstanding the cleverness and energy of the mumsnetters reviewing policy documents on this thread, it’s not rocket science. But highly paid Trust lawyers don’t seem to have thought to even look at their published policies. They must be gormless, and not worth the five/six figure sums they will have been taking from the public purse.

So much money wasted that should have been spent on patient care.

edited to add: swashbuckling - hah! Yes, will be keeping eyes peeled for more of that!

I've got less time than I thought I'd have this week. I'm underway with NHS Ayrshire & Arran & should finish that tommorrow, but if someone wants to take on NHS Dumfries & Galloway, & NHS Borders, it would help us get something 'press ready'.

I think it might be a case of the frog in boiling water?
If you are convinced that you are ahead of the law (assuming it is in a good way) you might have got a bit relaxed? Plus your everyday case load is probably medical negligence - the contaminated blood scandal would be a fairly big distraction I imagine?! Poor saps, just got clear of that and then realising that there is a slew of ETs with masses of more bad publicity coming their way. Not a comfortable position to be in. I have to say all of the makes me feel ill about having to trust the NHS with anything at all. What are they all thinking?

@umbel - might you be able to help with one of these? I'll DM you the survey link

Badenoch commented on the lawlessness today
https://archive.is/Rz93I

What a lot of rot!

Scottish Parliament spokesperson: “We have been clear in our support for the separate and single-sex exceptions in the act, which allow for people to be excluded when this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Shame they didn't actually check the policies then isn't it? Not a single one so far has a single sex exception and Sandie Peggie was bullied out of her job for wanting one. They make themselves look very foolish don't they?

I cannot find some of the documents I expect to find. I will have to FOI them, and that takes time.

thanks for plugging away at this

I think that some trusts are taking documents off the websites. NHS Forth’s policy existed because a picture of its cover sheet was tweeted but even knowing its exact name hasn’t made it findable….

x.com/lnmackenzie1/status/1899478402781880639

so maybe we just have to record policies “not found” because thats damning in itself… and I think it’s probably better to have a snapshot of results quickly now? Then we could add extra entires later if the FOI turns up useful stuff?

what do you think?

I agree - let’s treat this not as “what is their policy?”
but as “what is publicly available regarding their policy?” The two should obviously be the same, but in instances where they aren’t, that is just more evidence against them.

Also: if members of MBM are also digging, is it worth us getting in touch with them with all this? I’m thinking they (a) might have thoughts on what best to do with it, and (b) might have tips on how best to dig.

I agree that some policies are likely to have been taken down from public view although I would also add that of the Trust websites that I have delved into so far they are also poorly organised and information often out of date. Google is much the best way to find documents.
I think Knotty is right we do what we can with what we can find to give that overview and then decide if is worth doing an FOI for those policies that we believe we are missing.

Google is definitely your friend - as far as I can tell, NHF Lothian’s only publicly available instance of their policy is in the response to an FOI request (double checking this today). FOI responses can only be found (a) if you know the FOI request number or (b) by Googling relevant terms.

I asked Lisa MacKenzie who supplied a link to copy. (looks like they had to ask for it)

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/5.1-NHS-Forth-Valley.-Supporting-Transgender-Staff-in-the-Workplace.pdf

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2022/12/03/the-erosion-of-single-sex-hospital-accommodation-in-scotland/ v useful blog containing the link

@KnottyAuty Look what Sternly has got for us!! We need to add it into the audit for Forth Valley which I have already submitted. Can I get access to update it or is this something you can do as the author?

Brilliant!

no idea - I can probably add it from the back end as some tinkering seems possible. I’ll let you know when I’m back at my desk later

😘

All the EqIAs are supposed to be published. The fact that these things are NOT easy to find or publicly available IS the problem.

It’s all supposed to be clear, honest and transparent. And to foster good relations between groups.

Our audit is already showing that it’s opaque, underhand, ill conceived, poorly executed, discriminatory and contrary to public expectations.

Of course this is nothing that hasn’t been said before. So the question is whether in combination with the Peggie case that people will be interested?

Just a thought @KnottyAuty if it is easier I will just complete another form for Forth Valley and include the new info on it.

It will be a good idea to cite the exact legal provision that states that EqIAs must be published. Have we a note of that provision ready, or is that another thing to be sleuthing for?

Ooh yes please if you can look - the EHCR open letter to NHS Fife mentioned it. If you can located the actual legal requirement that would be fab 😍

Well, I don’t think NHS England is any better, and that all happened under the Conservative government, so…,

Quick google there is no requirement to publish the EQI assessment but required to publish results that cause a change in policy to meet duty