Basis Yorkshire has recently responded to two consultations run by public bodies – the Pathways to Work consultation from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Equality and Human Rights Commission consultation on new guidance around single-sex spaces and service provision. We have submitted evidence to both of these as we believe that they contain provisions which are likely to cause harm to the communities we serve. This blog post shares more about how we responded to both consultations, our concerns on each of them, and what we have proposed to mitigate the impacts of some of the suggested measures.
EHRC Code of Practice on Single Sex Spaces
We have recently responded to the Equality and Human Rights Commission Consultation around updates to the guidance around single-sex spaces, following the Supreme Court ruling. Our response focused on our concerns for our service users and staff as a trans-inclusive organisation. Throughout the guidance, the focus is primarily on how trans people should be excluded from services, with no consideration for how trans people can be included within spaces where an organisation wishes to welcome them.
Many themes recurred throughout the consultation. In particular, there is now a lack of clarity around the way in which multiple laws intersect with one another in relation to how trans people are recognised within these. These include the role of gender recognition certificates, protection from harassment and discrimination, hate crime laws and pregnancy and maternity rights.
Another recurring theme was unquestioned language, particularly around the meaning of ‘biological sex’. This is a complex term which can be defined using multiple characteristics, including chromosomes, sex characteristics and hormones. Many of these can be changed.
The language used, and practices recommended within the guidance overall may also be particularly alienating for intersex people, people with some disabilities or health conditions which impact their hormones or presentation, and gender non-conforming people.
Furthermore, the guidance undermines our ability at Basis to be a trauma-informed service. We work with people who experience high levels of vulnerability, stigma and marginalisation. We are deeply concerned that a human rights organisation is recommending that service providers impose a policy that even they acknowledge may be potentially distressing. Our work includes supporting people who have experienced trafficking and exploitation, including children and young people, and we are not willing to compound the trauma that they have experienced by asking the invasive, distressing and discriminatory questions that the guidance recommends.
We are particularly concerned that the guidance may mean that trans people face a worse standard of care or access to services. At Basis, we regularly work with partners to ensure that people have access to the services that they need, and we are worried that a lack of consistency and a push towards trans exclusion more broadly will mean that we can no longer support access to other organisations. Additionally, we have members of staff at Basis who are also members of the trans community, who currently provide support to people of all genders, including as part of services targeted at women and non-binary people. There is no guidance as to how they can or should be included within our service provision, and how our organisation can respect their dignity as skilled and valued colleagues.
We are worried about the potential human rights impacts for trans people in being banned completely from services which align with their lived gender, particularly in relation to their rights to privacy, safety and non-discrimination. Given that the people we work with are highly vulnerable, experiencing high levels of exploitation, abuse, and stigma, we are concerned that withdrawing even more services from them will place them at greater risk of harm from others, poor mental health and a reduction in our ability to tackle the harms that the most marginalised in our society face. It will further reduce their already-limited and fragile trust in services and may mean that even more abuse and exploitation goes undetected, leaving vulnerable people at risk of harm and violence. This is an unacceptable outcome to us.
The EHRC has a legal duty to promote equality, diversity and human rights across society, including for trans people. We do not believe that the rights of transgender people are in conflict with the rights of cisgender people, nor is there any evidence to suggest that any group of people are made less safe through the increase of rights and inclusion for trans people. Much of the guidance legitimises the exclusion of a highly stigmatised and vulnerable group of people from accessing both life-saving and vital services, and facets of society which allow us to thrive and enrich our lives, thereby actively inciting and condoning inequality, vulnerability and harm. Instead, we would seek guidance on how services can lawfully include trans people according to their lived gender, in ways which promote their dignity and safety and which allow them to access support rather than retraumatisation.
Pathways to Work
The Pathways to Work consultation was run by the Department for Work and Pensions, and discussed changes to the benefits system (including Universal Credit (UC) and Personal Independence Payments (PIP)). The consultation asked about some proposed changes to the benefits system, improving access to healthcare for people with disabilities and health conditions, Access to Work and other measures which could be established to support more people in mainstream work.
It was very disappointing to see that the consultation did not address some of the most concerning proposals put forward by the government, particularly around changes to accessing PIP. While concessions on the original Bill have been made thanks to the hard work of disability campaigners, we are still concerned about the potential impact that the Bill will have on people who need to access PIP and other support with disabilities going forward.
Our response to the consultation focused on the ways in which poverty and disability intersect with people selling sex or experiencing exploitation. As an organisation which works closely with many people who experience disabilities or health conditions as well as poverty, we have seen first-hand how they encounter the benefits system, the health and care system, and mainstream work. The previous government has already explored the link between UC and ‘survival sex’, and other academic research has looked at why people with disabilities or health conditions are more likely to engage in selling sex – often due to health limitations or poor and unaccommodating conditions in mainstream work. However, pushing more people into selling sex or risk of exploitation (children and adults) through the removal of benefits and support measures, under present laws, places those who do so at higher risks of violence and harm, and can trap people in cycles of poverty due to fines, criminal records and stigma making rejoining the mainstream workforce more challenging.
We were highly critical of the suggested changes to PIP, particularly around the removal of support from people who do not score 4 in at least one daily living component. Losing this not only removes their PIP support, but also their access to other benefits which rely on them receiving PIP. We shared that PIP often enables disabled people to work, and to remove this would push them further away from the mainstream work force. We also discussed how financial insecurity, poverty and precarity will have a significant impact on the mental health of disabled people.
Alongside this, we considered how the reduction in PIP eligibility will impact carers, who are also already overrepresented in sex work and young people we support. Carers will be required to do more to support those they care for, potentially preventing them from working mainstream jobs alongside their caring responsibilities, and some PIP claimants will lose their carers allowance altogether. Not only will more disabled people turn to selling sex to make ends meet, but those who care for them will do too.
Elsewhere in the consultation, we criticised plans to scrap the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), as there were no alternative proposals to ensure that people who were eligible for the UC Health Element could do so. We are supportive of plans to reduce the number of intimidating, stressful assessments that disabled people are forced to go through to access support, and instead called for a review of the WCA with meaningful involvement from disability organisations to find a suitable alternative. We also criticised proposals to delay access to the UC Health Element until a person was 21 years’ old, which place younger disabled people at a disadvantage. However, echoing the calls of many disability and anti-poverty organisations, we shared a desire for all future benefit entitlements to be set against minimum income standards, alongside a consideration of the additional living costs that people with disabilities experience.
Elsewhere, we discussed the inaccessibility of health and care systems for people who sell sex, and the stigmatising treatment that they can experience when attempting to access these. We shared the need for a focus on improving access to healthcare for inclusion health groups, and the need for services to be developed “by, with and for” marginalised communities.
The consultation also asked about current safeguarding processes within DWP services, which we were highly critical of. We raised concerns about the mental health and welfare of those accessing DWP services, and that reducing people’s access to benefits even further would exacerbate these, while our healthcare system is already underfunded and overstretched, lacking resources to provide adequate support. We also shared the ways in which people who sell sex have experienced stigma, discrimination and exploitation in DWP settings.
Another topic that the DWP wanted to hear views on was Access to Work, a scheme which provides support to people with disabilities or health conditions in mainstream workplaces. We shared positive experiences of Access to Work and recommended that the scheme remain in place with minimal changes. However, we also noted that disabled people must have suitable jobs in affirming, understanding workplaces; many people with disabilities or health conditions struggle in mainstream work due to poor, unsympathetic, exclusionary or hostile work environments – in particular, a lack of understanding and support from managers. We know that some begin, or return to, selling sex as a result of this. As such, we recommended support for employers to create disability-friendly jobs and workplace environments.
Finally, we concluded our evidence submission by sharing that the government must acknowledge that these changes will result in more people turning to selling sex or being to make ends meet, and that they deserve safety and protection and at greater risk of exploitation. We particularly noted the need for full decriminalisation to reduce the harm and violence they experience, to reduce barriers that people face when leaving sex work, and to improve access to financial services.
Basis Yorkshire is proud to be a service which advocates for the rights and safety of people who sell sex, as well as people who experience sexual exploitation. This includes people who experience poverty, people with disabilities or health conditions, and people who are trans. We hope to continue to do so, supporting people as they need to live empowered, fulfilled and thriving lives. We are concerned that the proposals laid out in both of these consultations will place significant barriers on us being able to do so, and hope that the bodies responsible for these consultations consider the impact of their proposals and work instead to create a system which prioritises equality, dignity and respect.