Decision details

Matter for Decision

The Council’s Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy set out the Council’s commitment to promoting equality and diversity, including through its role as an employer and a provider of services to the public. A revised and updated version of the policy was presented for approval in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

 

The Council developed a new Single Equality Scheme (Appendix C of the Officer’s report), which set out how the organisation would challenge discrimination and promote equal opportunities in all aspects of its work over the next 3 years (2018-2021). It included five strategic objectives that demonstrated how the organisation would meet the aims of the Public Sector Equality Duty. The Single Equality Scheme was developed based on the principles and policies set out in the Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Approved the revised Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy set out in Appendix A of the Officer’s report, as amended to include reference to “services and employment exception” instead of “single sex exemption”.

     ii.          Approved the Single Equality Scheme 2018-2021 at Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Public Question

Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.

 

1.    Sarah Brown raised the following points to express concern about the Council’s Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy:

       i.          The changes to the Policy [detailed in pages 6 to 8 in the Equalities Policy and Strategy Committee report] symbolize a reduction in support for the LGBT community.  The Council made the LGBT community feel more welcome in the past when the provisions relating to transgender people were first implemented, which Ms Brown helped bring about in her role as councillor back in 2010. The community did not feel welcome following the proposed changes to the Policy.

     ii.          As a result of this symbolism, transgender people and women who look more masculine will be at risk of harassment in public toilets and challenged for using toilets of their choosing.

   iii.          Expressed concern about how the Council would implement the equalities policy and expressed that the changes to the Policy reflect that the Council will do the bare minimum required by the Equality Act 2010 when it should go further as part of its Public Sector Equality Duty. The law is a limit not a target, and the provisions in 2010 were not ‘fettering our discretion’ as external legal advice the Council received claimed. Targets do not fetter discretion.

   iv.          Requested that the Policy’s implementation be deferred

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

       i.          Comments in the press were unhelpful and caused distress. She took strong issue with this.

     ii.          Once the question of equality policy compliance with legislation had been raised, officers took advice on how to ensure we were compliant as language in the Council’s equality policy needed to reflect language in the legislation. The Council was not changing its policy, just the language used.

   iii.          The legal advice given to Council was that services and employment exceptions needed to be included in the equalities policy or the Council would fetter its discretion (reference paragraph 3.15, p141 of the Officer’s report). The exceptions would only be applied in exceptional circumstances. It had always been in place, but officers did not expect to use it. There had been no requests to use it to date.

   iv.          Undertook to do communication work to ensure people were clear about the equalities policy, and to counter any negative press articles.

    v.          The Council was only making changes to comply with the law.

 

Sarah Brown raised the following supplementary points:

       i.          The Equality Act was in place to protect individuals.

     ii.          The option to exclude people was only an option. The Equality Act 2010 is civil support and you cannot sue someone under the Equality Act for failing to exclude them.

   iii.          The Council should try to do better than the law on non-discriminatory policies.

   iv.          The language changes were acceptable.

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

       i.          The service and employment exception existed in and would only be applied as an option if necessary. There had been no requests to do so to date.

     ii.          Officers had sought counsels opinion on the implications of the legislation in addition to in-house legal advice. The Council remained committed to meeting the needs of all people.

 

2.    Emma Martin raised the following points:

       i.          Was employed as a Clinical Psychologist and trainer in gender identification issues.

     ii.          There was huge confusion in the definition of how things were written between sex and gender. You cannot change gender in the same way as you can change sex.

   iii.          Changing legislation wording from “gender” to “sex” had caused a national outcry in the Equality Act 2010.

   iv.          Expressed concern the city was going backwards in attitude as a result in the Council’s change in policy.

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

       i.          The Officer’s report was based on legal advice.

     ii.          The Council was a statutory body who had to respond to changes in legislation and to be compliant with the Equality Act.

 

The Head of Legal Practice confirmed that the City Council had to make changes to its equality policy to be compliant with Equality Act legislation.

 

Emma Martin raised the following supplementary points:

       i.          Queried if the City Council had checked with other local authorities to see if their policy language was compliant with legislation.

     ii.          Offered her services as a gender identification trainer.

 

The Executive Councillor noted the offer of training.

 

The Chief Executive said the City Council had checked with other local authorities. The language in their policies was compliant with the Equality Act.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Chief Executive and Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer. The Chief Executive proposed  an amendment to the draft policy on p151 of the Officer’s report  to replace the words “single sex exemption ” with the words  “services and employment exceptions”.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Expressed concern about misrepresentation of issues in the media.

     ii.          Welcomed the Council’s commitment to:

a.    The Single Equality Scheme.

b.    Safer spaces.

c.    Tackling loneliness.

d.    The Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance

e.    Help people access mental health services.

 

Councillor O’Connell made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Wording – “sex” versus “gender” – this was uncontroversial and she had no problem with it..

     ii.          Expressed concern about:

a.    Changing the ordering of the protected characteristics listed in the first page of the Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy, as this was presentational and not in strict keeping with what was required by legislation.

b.    Use of employment and service exemptions in the Equalities Act.

   iii.          Less concerned about changes to policy, more concerned about how we got there by not consulting on the changes to the Policy.

   iv.          Accepted that Officers had the right intentions but expressed concern that Trans People experienced hostility across the country, which led Councils to perceive the minimum requirements in the Equality Act 2010 as all that can be done. The City Council policy could cause problems for the future if there was a change in Council Officers and Councillors who were not sympathetic to transgender people’s needs.

    v.          Referenced paragraphs 3.14 – 3.18 in the Officer’s report. The employment and service exceptions caused concern due to references of “sex” instead of “gender”.

   vi.          Took issue with Counsel’s legal advice.

 vii.          8 days (between publication of agenda and committee) was not enough time to scrutinise the issue.

 

In response to the report Councillors O’Connell and Gillespie asked if a decision on changing the policy wording could be deferred. They suggested consulting on wording to be implemented to see if it could be improved.

 

The Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          There have been some comments made by members of the public expressing concern about how the Policy will impact on them. Some issues such as access to toilets had been misrepresented in the press. A public consultation will allow us to explore issues associated with implementing the Policy. 

     ii.          Over the last 8 years, changing rooms in council managed community centres (overseen by GLL) had positive feedback on access by all members of the community. For changing rooms and toilets in council managed community centres (overseen by GLL) officers have had positive feedback over the last 8 years on access by all members of the community. This was monitored through Customer Services.

   iii.          Undertook to liaise with Councillors after the meeting on actions to tackle loneliness.

   iv.          Corrected typographical errors in the report:

a.    3.7 The Council has sought legal advice, …key issues from this advice are summarised in paragraphs 3.7 to  3.18 below.

b.    Paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5: References to “Strategy” should read “Scheme”.

c.    Appendix B page 170 of the public papers the sentence reading “The Council has not received any positive feedback or complaints from transgender people accessing the services above 2010” should read “… After 2010.”

 

The Chief Executive said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The Council needed to comply with legislation and have appropriate policy wording.

     ii.          The Council would consult on the implementation of the Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy. A report would then be brought back to Environment and Community Service Committee on the consultation.

   iii.          Officers did not want to fetter the Council’s discretion by specifying actions now where the employment and services exceptions would not apply. Any changes to the Policy’s wording suggested as a result of the consultation would need to comply with the Equality Act.

 

The Head of Legal Practice said the Council could not avoid the need for legal compliance. The policy text had to change from “gender” to “sex”. The Council could listen and engage with the public, but could not change details that were needed to comply with legislation. The Council would be open to challenge if it did nothing when it had been given clear legal advice to take action.

 

   iv.          It would not be practicable for Councillors to have oversight of service and employment exceptions (reference paragraph 3.3 of the Officer’s report).

    v.          The Council would undertake communication to say what it was doing to make people safe in referring to actions under the Single Equality Scheme. For example, improving CCTV and Safer Spaces.

   vi.          Complaints about services were monitored and reported to the Civic Affairs Committee.

 

The Chief Executive had proposed an amendment to text on p151 of the Officer’s report. Text should read “services and employment exceptions” instead of “single sex exemption” as it is the former phrase that is consistent with the legislation.

 

The Committee approved this amendment by 6 votes to 0.

 

The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The Committee endorsed recommendation (i) (as amended) by 6 votes to 4.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed recommendation (ii).

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.