Health and Care Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-09
Topic: Health
Guy Mansfield (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 297G. This will give much-needed statutory force to what has been long-stated NHS policy, but which has not always been properly implemented. This is why we will demonstrate why current guidance is equivocal upon it. I hasten to add that I am not a conspirator against trans people—I make that absolutely plain. I resent the suggestion that those speaking in support of this amendment might be thought to be The current NHS guidance, which goes a long way back historically, as we have heard, is in these terms: "All providers of NHS-funded care are expected to prioritise the safety, privacy and dignity of all patients"— we all agree with that. It continues: "Adherence to this guidance is an essential part of this." It then goes on to talk about mixed accommodation: "What is a mixed-sex accommodation breach? … Patients should not normally have to share sleeping accommodation with members of the opposite sex. Patients should not have to share toilet or bathroom facilities with members of the opposite sex. Patients should not have to walk through an area occupied by patients of the opposite sex to reach toilets or bathrooms; this excludes corridors." This is what hospitals should be doing. In particular, I ask your Lordships to note the terminology and the use of the terms "mixed-sex" and "opposite sex". Sex, we all know, is physiological; it dates from conception and is not assigned at birth or at some later date. The definitions of man and woman in Sections 11 and 212 of the Equality Act refer to sex, not gender. Further, Part 7 of Schedule 3 of the Equality Act provides at paragraph 27: "A person does not contravene section 29 … by providing a service only to persons of one sex if … the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of … a hospital, or … the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex." Hospitals are free to do what they wish and to prioritise single-sex wards. However, in contradiction to the law, physiology and the primary guidance to which I have referred, annexe B of the guidance provides: "Transgender … is a broad, inclusive term referring to anyone whose personal experience of gender extends beyond the typical experiences of their assigned sex at birth." We are moving from sex to gender, and it is premised on a scientific flaw. Building on that error, it continues: "If patients are transferred to a ward, this should also be in accordance with their continuous gender presentation (unless the patient requests otherwise)." The guidance is not saying that they should be put somewhere safe or separate but that they should go to the ward that they wish. If they say a women’s ward, they go to a women’s ward. That is not what Secretaries of State have said and not what has been policy for 20 years, and it departs from the primary guidance. I submit that it is wrong—and I am sure noble Lords will all agree. It discriminates against women who do not wish to be in the presence of someone who is an intact male, as some trans people will be Amendment 297G is perfectly reasonable and absolutely right, and I urge noble Lords to adopt it.