Thread by @jameskirkup

The @CareQualityComm, a non-departmental public body answerable to Parliament, has decided it is competent to interpret and apply legislation (the Equality Act 2010) as it sees fit.... 1/

The issue here is the "protected characteristics" set out in the Act. It is against the law to discriminate against someone because of:
age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation 2/

Note that "sex" and "gender reasignment" are *different* characteristics. IE: Parliament has decided that a person's biological sex and gender expression are different. Yet the CQC says that "gender" can encompass both, because everyone with a gender also has a sex. 3/

This is logically dubious: everyone who has a disability also has an age, but that wouldn't justify omitting "age" and saying it was covered by "disability". A person can face discrimation on grounds of sex (Eg, they can become pregnant) where "gender" is irrelevant. 4/

Legally, it's also contestable. Parliament was clear about sex and gender reassignment being seperate characteristics. Constitutionally, this is trickier still. CQC answers to Parliament. Can it be right for such a public body to enacting its own novel version of statute? 5/

I know this seems abstract and obscure, but CQC has core functions where the sex/gender issue is key. IE: monitoring NHS compliance with ministerial order to provide "same-sex" wards. 6/ cqc.org.uk/sites/default/…

If @CareQualityComm believes "gender" is synonymous with "sex", how does it discharge its duty to inspect and report NHS provision of "same-sex" hospital wards? And are MPs content to allow NDPBs make the law? @CQCPressOffice 👋 7/ tbc...