The NHS should think again before employing equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) staff, the health secretary has said (Times Radio).
Victoria Atkins made the comments while outlining landmark reforms to ensure NHS trusts no longer pursue ‘trans inclusion’ by referring to women with the aid of descriptors like “chestfeeding”, and instead use only “sex-specific” language to ensure illnesses and conditions known to impact women differently to men are communicated in a “clear and accurate way”
Earlier this week, the government announced major changes to the NHS constitution, in a landmark pushback against proponents of gender ideology – like trans activists – who demand adherence to their belief that ‘sex’ is not biological, but fluid – a social construct, just like gender (Telegraph).
The NHS constitution, which sets out the principles and values of the health service and legal rights for patients and staff, was last updated in 2015. It has to be updated at least every 10 years by the Secretary of State. Importantly, all NHS bodies, as well as private and third-sector providers that supply NHS services, are required by law to take it into account when making decisions.
The new constitution will state: “We are defining sex as biological sex.”
Campaigners for women’s rights welcomed this as a “return to common sense”. It comes after years of wrangling and follows accusations that the health service had been captured by gender ideology.
The new draft constitution, which is currently out for public consultation, makes clear that NHS trusts can no longer pursue ‘trans inclusion’ by referring to women with the aid of descriptors like “chestfeeding” and “people who have ovaries”. Emphasised instead is the importance of “sex-specific” language for ensuring that illnesses and conditions known to impact women differently to men are communicated in a “clear and accurate way” (LBC, Mail, Telegraph).
Ms Atkins told Times Radio that she wanted the NHS to move away from employing so many EDI staff with a remit focused on highly divisive social issues, and refocus itself on recruiting and retaining staff capable of actually treating patients.
“Every single penny counts,” she said, “and I do wonder whether those roles are as essential as some of the other roles we are recruiting to. So my challenge to NHS England is to say we’ve had now a great deal of time to ensure that we are trying to be understanding and inclusive and responsive to people’s needs, we don’t need separate roles.”
We agree, not least because EDI staff are responsible for establishing and delivering workplace EDI training.
Contrary to the popular slogan that expenditure on these training opportunities is ‘just good business’, the FSU’s latest research report reveals that it operates, in effect, as an ‘EDI Tax’.
According to a survey of a representative sample of UK workers undertaken on behalf of the FSU, many ambitious employees and senior managers are now leaving companies because of the excessive time they’re expected to spend on these courses. Ironically, they prove most irksome to those they purport to benefit, i.e., members of the LGBTQ+ community and ethnic minorities.
Given the extent of self-censorship revealed by our research report, The EDI Tax, many UK employees are also thinking twice before contributing to workplace conversations. Genuine diversity of thought is of course required for any organisation to succeed – but in the NHS, where patients’ health is at stake, encouraging a culture of silence to creep-in risks materially affecting the quality of care and treatment on offer.
These research findings are consistent with the report of the Inclusion at Work panel commissioned by the UK’s Minister for Women and Equalities, Kemi Badenoch. Following interviews with 100 people representing 55 organisations, the report noted a “lack of accessible, plain-language, robust data on the efficacy of D&I [Diversity & Inclusion] interventions”, as well as a lack of evidence that these interventions were effective in achieving their purported objectives.
In December 2020, the government’s Behavioural Insights Team came to a similar conclusion in its review of unconscious bias training. The Written Ministerial Statement accompanying that study noted that, “Despite a growing diversity training industry and increased adoption of unconscious bias programmes, a strong body of evidence has emerged that shows that such training has no sustained impact on behaviour and may even be counterproductive”.
