NHS Accused of Failing Legal Duty to Women and Girls
The National Health Service is squandering cash on causes that could be spent on care because – like many branches of government – it’s failing in its duty to respect the rights of women and girls, according to Heather Binning, executive director of the Women’s Rights Network.
Duty is one of those words which has fallen out of favour in the Westminster bubble and other political circles. But it matters. It matters in terms of how we function as a fair and respectful society, and it matters in law.
The NHS has a duty to promote equality and give ‘due regard’ to the rights of women and also to the rights of people who reject the notion humans can change sex or adopt a self-declared gender identity. This obligation is spelt out in what is known as the Public Sector Equality Duty and, to quote the Equality and Human Rights Commission, it is “a legal requirement for public authorities and organisations carrying out public functions”.
Public Sector Equality Duty Applies Widely
It applies not only to the NHS, but to every arm of national and local government including government departments, local councils, police forces, schools, education bodies, fire services and transport providers — around 200 organisations in all.
Yet despite this explicit obligation, the NHS dismisses the rights of patients who want to be accommodated on a single-sex ward, via the Annex B guidance which instructs staff to place men who claim to be women on female wards.
As the Express has highlighted, the NHS has also shown scant regard for female staff who object to sharing changing facilities with men. In the case of the Darlington nurses alone, it is estimated that the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust has blown £1.25 million supporting a male medic who claimed the “right” to use the women’s changing room.
Similarly, Freedom of Information requests confirm that NHS Fife has spent at least £220,500 defending what many of us would regard as the indefensible – supporting a male doctor who claimed he was victimised because nurse Sandie Peggie challenged his presence in the female changing room.
Pride Events Called Unlawful After High Court Ruling
One of the most visible manifestations of this cavalier approach to the Equality Act and Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) is the annual ‘celebration’ of Pride which sees ambulances painted in the Progress Pride flag, and uniformed staff taking part in Pride events – despite a High Court ruling in July last year confirming that this is unlawful.
In Smith v the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, Mr Justice Linden held that the Pride march involved the promotion of contested political views and that participation by uniformed officers was incompatible with their duty of impartiality.
And while this case related to a police force, he made it clear that all public authorities are subject to the Public Sector Equality Duty and need to give “due regard” to the rights of women, and every person who holds the legally-protected belief that humans cannot magically change sex.
Similarly, Mr Justice Linden pointed out that Pride had become a political event and the Lord Mann Review recommends that NHS staff should not attend political protests or marches in uniform.
Inconsistent Application Across Ambulance Services
Against this backdrop, the Women’s Rights Network (WRN) Health Group wrote to 13 of the 14 UK ambulances services asking if they were officially participating in Pride events. West Midlands Service had already announced they would not and only two others – London and Wales – confirmed that they had considered the ruling and decided not to participate. Five services confirmed they would be taking part in Pride and six did not respond. How can these different ambulance trusts look at the same laws and come to such diametrically opposed decisions?
There is clearly some truth to Kemi Badenoch’s view that: “The Public Sector Equality Duty has turned equality into a zero-sum game, where some groups are preferred over others.”
There is also an obvious failure of leadership – which is why WRN Health Group has written to the Secretary for Health and Social Care, James Murray, and the chief executives of NHS England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, reminding them of the law and urging them to issue clear guidance to establish a consistent national approach to the PSED.
Unlike the Conservative Leader, who wants to scrap the PSED, WRN would prefer to see it applied fairly and uniformly. But Kemi Badenoch is right when she warns: “Whatever its intention in practice, it [the PSED] has become a minefield that exposes almost every significant public decision to legal challenge.”
There is only one way to clear this legal minefield and avoid more and more taxpayers’ money being wasted on needless legal actions – and that is for all branches of government needs to give firm, fair and transparent guidance that the law, and PSED, must be followed.
