Bridget Phillipson now says EHRC single-sex guidance will NOT apply to workplaces

[IwantToRetire]

Ms Phillipson was asked about the ongoing delay in publishing the EHRC guidance on single‑sex spaces.

Ms Phillipson said:

‘There’s no delay, it’s just the process that we are following. I do want to get that good practice out there into the world.

What I would say, however, is the Code of Practice, applies to services and associations. It doesn’t apply to the workplace regulations.

So that really is a matter for the NHS…and how they intend to uphold their responsibilities as an employer.’

‘Alarmed’ Following the meeting, Jennifer Melle, said:

“I am thankful to have had the opportunity to speak to the government about my case. I was alarmed to hear that the long awaited EHRC guidance does not apply to workplaces, however. The government needs to be transparent and someone in authority has to take decisive action.

“I, and nurses across the country, need urgent action from the government so that no nurse has to go through what I have.

Full article https://conservativepost.co.uk/bridget-phillipson-now-says-ehrc-single-sex-guidance-will-not-apply-to-workplaces/

Labour are all over the place

What is the guidance to workplaces? It’s pretty simple they just need to know what it is re single sex facilities.

What I would say, however, is the Code of Practice, applies to services and associations. It doesn’t apply to the workplace regulations.
So that really is a matter for the NHS…and how they intend to uphold their responsibilities as an employer.’

So given what the S in NHS stands for the CoP applies to the NHS ?

I suspect Philipson wants to circumvent those regs too. And I don't see how the EA2010 rules don't apply to workplaces.

Just imagine for a moment that UK anti discrimination law could actually be obeyed:

Indirect discrimination is still discrimination: If policy, practice or procedure in a workplace or a public place has the effect of putting women at a disadvantage, it is discriminatory: Therefore, when a woman cannot have reasonable unhindered access to anything she reasonably requires at work, or in a public place, she is being discriminated against.

The wilfully hard-of-understanding may choose to ignore the fact that virtually all men are 'in a position of power' over virtually all women, because men are stronger. Women stay alive by being aware of that. Therefore, females must never be forced to stand up to, to confront or to challenge males, as a routine procedure to access provision at work or anywhere else.

The NHS that forces madness on medical and nursing staff is the same NHS that obliges the public to endure risk of rape, and rape, on female-only wards, and to endure a 6'5" burly bearded rugby player declaring he is a woman, to carry out procedures for which patients have a legal right to insist on a female attendant.

It's the same NHS which is endlessly short of staff and resources and time, therefore employs extremely highly paid Stonewall advocates, to drag staff away from their work, to endure indoctrination that men and women CAN change sex regardless of what biology and the Supreme Court say. These pages have detailed how women have been threatened by the 'trained' staff, never to protest that the man in the next bed on a female-only ward, is waving himself around and threatening them. The fearful patients must be told they are trans-bigots and will be refused treatment if they object, because protesting against a transman is "the same as racism".

It's so bloody obvious, isn't it?

The wilful stupidity bends my brain.

This.

And the impact and issues are entirely binary sex based. Men benefit, women lose.

Because no one is remotely worried about a woman harming anyone regardless of surgery or pronoun choices. Worried about her being harmed by a man? Yes, definitely.

GLP judgement out tomorrow

Realistically, as the workplace regs (and probably the school regs predate the EA 2010, then the arguments that applied in the SC judgment would equally apply.

When these laws were made, the meanings of words such as sex and man and woman were not in dispute. Therefore when the laws were created their meaning and intent was clear.

The SC has clarified that the meaning of the word sex has not significantly changed since that time and therefore the original intent of the EA, which was to protect people of each sex, still applies.

It is hugely unlikely that a separate case regarding an earlier law would conclude differently.

The only thing that’s complicated is that there are a few thousand loud objectors with a vested interest who are pretending both that they don’t understand that law and also simultaneously that the law isn’t fair.

Admittedly this is deeply frustrating, but on a legal level, I suspect the reality is that it’s not complicated at all.

Thank you for explaining that, POWNewcastleEastWallsend .

• but the HSE will only investigate breaches if they are reported officially via RIDDOR and where there has been physical harm as a result of the breach

Am I getting this right?

The regs say facilities must be single sex, but if these are not actually provided, it will only be considered a breach of those regs if there is 'physical harm'?
An employer is required to provide single sex facilities, but anybody can use them regardless?
So a woman who objects has to take a case on the ground of discrimination, not inadequate workplace conditions?

I think it was pointed out during one of the tribunals that although employers can't 'police' who is using which toilet, they can make it very clear that, as per the SC ruling, the toilets, which comply with Workplace Regs by being sex-segregated, are to be used by the designated sex only, and that any employee who repeatedly goes against this will be subject to ... I dunno, disciplinary action? - whatever is appropriate.

What's the point in Workplace Regs requiring separate facilities for women and for men, if that separation is not actually enforced?

Thank you POWNewcastleEastWallsend, that's the nearest I've come to understanding it, but there are still so many lapses in logic and common sense, aren't there?

The code of practice for services applies to the services the National Health Service provides to the public like changing facilities for patients, not to facilities it provides to its employees.

I don’t understand why what BP said is controversial or even news.

Have you not read the thread, in order to discover why people want to discuss it in more detail?

I have read the thread.

I want to add my voice to those wondering why Conservative Post is making a thing about this, and why nobody pointed out to Jennifer Melle that she has no reason to be “alarmed to hear that the long awaited EHRC guidance does not apply to workplaces”. It’s baked into the title of the guidance.

The discussion on here is useful and informative, as always.

Yes. I have government documents about toilet provision from 2008 where this just isn’t on the radar. If it was an issue it would have been mentioned. British Standards like BS6465 get updated every decade or so and the DfE School Design Briefs every few years.

Edit to add: somewhere between 2020-2023 terms like gender neutral started to be added to the education design documents which was at odds with the term unisex already there.

The last time I trawled through the HSE website I did not find this page - which looks a lot more hopeful than the end of the previous HSE rabbit hole I fell down, where I landed in RIDDOR!

Tell us about a health and safety issue

When to use this service

Use this service to report a health and safety issue in a workplace or public space in England, Scotland and Wales.

You may need to report your issue to a local authority or another enforcing authority. Check if this service is right for you.

(The "Check if this service is right for you" link explains that the HSE is responsible for enforcing health and safety at workplaces including:

• factories
• farms
• building sites
• mines
• schools and colleges
• fairgrounds
• gas, electricity and water systems
• hospitals and nursing homes
• central and local government premises
• offshore installations

The linked page also lists what HSE in not responsible for regulating.)

Before you start

In this service we ask you:

• if you have contacted us before
• if you are contacting us about coronavirus
• which sector your issue relates to
• what part of the UK your issue is in
• for your name
• what telephone number we can use to ask for more information
• what email address we can use
• what you want us to do, such as investigate an issue
• If we can contact you for further information, should we need to
• if there is risk of sickness, injury or death, if so who is at risk
• how long the issue has been going on and how long it will continue
• if you know the postcode
• for the first line of the address and the town or city, and what other details you have about the location
• if you know the business or organisation doing the activity
• if you know the person in charge at the location
• what your issue is
• if you have evidence, such as photographs
• if you can upload that evidence and tell us about what it shows
• how you relate to the issue
• if there are any aggressive people or animals at the location, or anything that might put inspectors in danger

Check what your employer should be doing to keep their workplace safe and healthy. Search by topic or industry.

Get help if you cannot report an issue online

You can contact us and we will fill in the form for you.

• Telephone: 0300 003 1647
• Telephone Building Safety Regulator: 0300 790 6787
• Monday to Tuesday, 8:30am to 5pm
• Wednesday, 10am to 5pm
• Thursday to Friday, 8:30am to 5pm

After you report your issue

We may call or email you for more information within 3 working days.
We aim to email you within 15 working days (3 weeks) to give you the outcome.

How the law protects you
You may have protection under the law including against unfair dismissal. Read about protection for whistleblowers on GOV.UK.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/tell-us-about-a-health-and-safety-issue.htm

++++++++++++++++

The last time I was scurrying around the HSE site I did find one report of a problem with single sex toilets investigated but it was just to do with signage. (I can't believe I haven't bookmarked the page!)

It might have been in relation to this case.

WhatDoTheyKnow search of HSE FOIRs for "toilet" found these:

Action under Workplace Regulations 1992 Toilets and washing facilities
26 September 2024

Dear Health and Safety Executive,
This request relates to The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.

Please tell me for the last ten years, how many times in each year the HSE took action against an employer for:

1. failing to provide separate toilets for men and women (except where each toilet is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from the inside). Regulation 20.

1. failing to provide separate washing facilities for men and women (except where those facilities are in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from the inside and are intended to be used by only one person at a time). Regulation 21

Please treat this request under FOI Act 2000.
Yours sincerely
V Jones

Answer:
One improvement notice for each of the above, no prosecutions.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/action_under_workplace_regulatio#incoming-2800973

There was a shorter discussion earlier in the thread that even if the guidelines are aonly for services etc., the work place regulations which no doubt have drifted with the introduction of the weasel word gender by queer academics and Stonewall etc., the Supreme Court ruling means those implementing work place regulations.

If work places want to pander to the life style of a small % of the population then they could in addition to facilities for each of the 2 sexes "gender neutral" for thos who pretend sex isn't real.

Quote: Sex‑based rights, which impose limits

That's a bit TRA, given that life style gender whatever is limiting women's sex based rights.

That's the issue.

Doesn't matter how you dress it up, those in power are more interested in pandering to this tiny minority at the expense of women.

If women were respected we wouldn't be having all these mental gymnastics to try and promote the judgement as anti trans.

Rather than celebrating women reclaiming their rights.

The author is a TERF. She is being descriptive rather than prescriptive.

I agree this is a very interesting paper.

Thands. Yesterday at 14.32. I posted that forcing women to confront and challenge, as an inbuilt routine in order to access legal entitlement, is itself a form of sex discrimination.

To many men, especially those in power i.e. those making and enforcing rules and laws and devising systems, it may seem an easy and natural part of everyday life to confront, to challenge and to fight, particularly if an actual physical confrontation is improbable, and the outcome is not likely to be life changing. Few men ever fear rape or murder. Virtually none ever fear physical attack from women or from fellow men, in the workplace, or even from strangers.

That is why men will happily stroll down dark alleys or through parks, alone.

Women inhabit a different world. After Sarah Everard, there was much reported astonished conversation in households; Men discovered for the first time, to their bafflement, that their female partners clutch keys in their hands, take constant care, avoid quicker routes, in favour of safe ones. Men had no idea that was happening, because female family members only do that when alone, not when the man is with them. Men just don't know how frightening men are. Nor that confrontation, so normal for males, is alien to natural behaviour and habit of females.

"Report officially via RIDDOR" or wait until AFTER there has been "physical harm" is not a reasonable way to enforce normal expectations and women's legal rights.

Perhaps the real reason for this apparent indifference to women’s safety is because Ms Phillipson and Health Secretary Wes Streeting have loftier ambitions. Both see themselves as successors to Sir Keir Starmer and are loath to do anything that could scupper their (albeit) slim chances of becoming prime minister.

This theory is borne out from an impeccable source who was at a recent Westminster meeting at which the employment tribunal victory of the Darlington Seven was discussed.

They said: “It is well known that the reason the EHRC issue has been kicked into the long grass, or deliberately ignored, is because if it was addressed it would seriously harm their leadership bids. And that says everything you need to know about this government. Personal ambition ahead of public safety. It’s disgraceful.”

As if to illustrate this point UNISON – one of the UK's largest trade unions with 1.3 million members and representing staff who provide public services in the public and private sector – washed its hands of the Darlington nurses.

Extracts only from https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2175632/NHS-biological-sex-gender-trans-women-s-rights-gender-reality

Can also be read at https://archive.is/XU5rZ

So is this saying that they are more frightened of what the Unions will say or do, then what ever any of fellow Labour MPs might say or do?

Or is it both?

I think it’s probably both.

So as usual women's rights are put to the end of the queue of everyone else's rights, and the rights of politicians to prioritise their political careers over doing the right think.