Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 08884-21 Trans Legal Project v The Daily
Telegraph
Summary
of Complaint
1. Trans
Legal Project complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in two articles headlined “Patient safety fears after NHS trusts allow
trans sex offenders in female-only wards / ‘Patients are not getting the
dignity they deserve’” and “Fears for patients over trans access misuse”, both
of which were published on 3rd August 2021.
2. The
article headlined “Patient safety fears after NHS trusts allow trans sex
offenders in female-only wards / ‘Patients are not getting the dignity they
deserve’” appeared on the front page of the newspaper, before continuing onto
page 4. It reported that “[m]ale-born sex offenders who self-identify as women
can be placed on female-only NHS wards, hospital trusts have said in guidance”
before stating that “Devon, Oxford and Nottinghamshire hospitals all say that a
criminal history should be part of a risk assessment when placing male-born
people on female-only wards, but do not say that it is a bar to admission.” The
article also reported that the publication had “found that NHS Trusts across
the country have issued guidance that says patients should be admitted based on
the gender they identify with”, and went on to include a statement from Oxford
Health NHS Trust which stated that the “risk of sexual offending in a trans
context is very rare […but...] where there is a significant risk” the trust
would “apply the same robust mitigation that we would to a non-trans patient to
ensure a safe therapeutic environment.”
3. The
article referred to “Devon Partnership NHS Trust guidance” which it quoted as
stating that patients “will be admitted based on the gender which they identify
with at the point of admission”. It also paraphrased the guidance as saying
that admission “will not be based on physical characteristics or the person
proving they have legally changed their gender or name, as they claim this is
illegal”. It then included a paraphrased quote from a spokesperson for the
Trust, which stated that the matter “was ‘a sensitive issue’ and that it was
reviewing the policy to ensure ‘the safety of our patients and staff’”.
4. The
article headlined “Fears for patients over trans access misuse” reported that
“a physically intact male had the right to choose to be accommodated on a
female ward and to use women’s lavatories and facilities” as “a result” of “an
instruction by NHS England”. The article then reported that “[t]here is no
requirement for the person to have begun to legally change their gender, as is
specified under equality laws” before stating that “[h]ospitals are exempt from
the Equalities Act, and the NHS guidelines both ignore this fact and go further
than Parliament in saying that people should be allowed into single-sex wards
based not on their legal gender but the one in which they self-identify”. It
also reported that at least one hospital trust had said that there "may be
instances when further consideration may be needed as to how best to manage a
trans patient". The article ended with a comment from the NHS, which
stated that “[h]ospitals […] follow[…] the legal requirements established by
Parliament.”
5. Both
articles appeared online under a single headline: “Patient safety fears as NHS allows
trans sex offenders in female-only wards”. The online article included an
additional sub-heading, prior to the paragraphs relating to the relevant
legislation, which read “Equalities Act exemption”.
6. The
complainant said that both articles misrepresented the relevant guidance and
suggested that it was new, when in fact it had been in place for some time. It
said that the headlines of the first print article and online article were not
supported by the text of the articles, which made clear that hospital trusts
carry out risk assessments before placing any patient with a criminal history
(including trans people) on single-sex wards. It further said that it
considered that the headline of the online article framed the story as a “new
and somehow threatening development” in a misleading and distorted manner. In
fact, it said, the legislation which underpinned the guidance had been in place
for over a decade. It then said that it was not accurate to report that
“male-born sex offenders who self-identify as women can be placed on
female-only NHS wards”, as the guidance showed that placements were based on
the patient’s presentation, rather than solely on self-identification.
7. The
complainant, turning to the second article, said that it was inaccurate to
report that “[h]ospitals are exempt from the Equalities Act”. It said that
hospitals are not exempt from the Equality Act 2010, which in fact made
specific reference to separate sex services in stating that people with the
protected characteristic of gender reassignment should be treated “according to
the gender role in which they present” and that exceptions should apply only
“in exceptional circumstances […] on a case-by-case basis”. The complainant
then noted that the hospital trusts quoted in the article all seemed to be
acting in line with this legislation, generally placing transgender women in
female-wards but refusing access where justified.
8. The
complainant also disputed a claim in the second article that “[t]here is no
requirement for the person to have begun to legally change their gender, as is
specified under equality laws”, as no equality law requires that a transgender
individual needs to have begun a legal process before they are afforded
protection in their lived gender – such as the right to be housed on a
single-sex ward.
9. The
publication denied any inaccuracy in the first and online articles, and
emphasised that it was not in dispute that, as the articles reported, safety
concerns had been raised in relation to transgender sex offenders being placed
on single-sex wards. The basis for both the print and online headlines were set
out in the article, and that therefore the headlines were supported by the text
of the articles. It noted that the article headlines did not claim that trans
sex offenders were routinely being placed on single-sex wards.
10. The
publication accepted that the claim that “[h]ospitals are exempt from the
Equalities Act” did not reflect the correct legal position on the matter. The
reference had been intended to convey the fact that the Act states that
single-sex services are permitted where “they are provided in a hospital or
other place where users need special attention (or in parts of such an
establishment)”, but it accepted that the phrasing indicated that hospitals
were exempt from all provisions of the act.
11. To
address this, the publication published the following wording in its usual Corrections
& Clarifications column, on 11 August 2021, 6 days after it was made aware
of the complaint:
"Patient
safety fears after NHS trusts allow trans sex offenders in female only wards”
(Aug,3) reported that hospitals were exempt from the Equalities Act and did not
have to admit patients to single sex wards that did not match their legal
gender. In fact, hospitals are only exempt from some provisions and under the
Act have to admit people to single sex spaces based on the gender they present
as, except in exceptional circumstances. We are happy to correct the record.
12. The
publication also added the following footnote to the online version of the
article, on 10 August 2021:
An
earlier version of this article reported that hospitals were exempt from the
Equalities Act and did not have to admit patients to single sex wards that did
not match their legal gender. Hospitals are only exempt from some provisions
and under the Act have to admit people to single sex spaces based on the gender
they present as, except in exceptional circumstances. The article has been
amended.
The
article was also amended 10 August 2021 to make clear that hospitals are exempt
from “parts of” the Equalities Act and that some NHS Trust guidelines both
ignore this fact and go further than Parliament in saying that people should be
allowed into single-sex wards based not on their gender presentation but the
one in which they self-identify”.
13. The
complainant was not satisfied with the publication of the correction and
footnote, and said that – since making its first complaint to IPSO – it had become
aware of additional inaccuracies within the article. The complainant flagged
these inaccuracies with the publication during the 28-day referral period; this
is the period of time which allows for the publication and complainant to
resolve the matter directly, prior to IPSO’s investigation.
14. The
complainant said that there were further inaccuracies in relation to the Devon
Partnership NHS trust guidance. It said that the guidance referenced in the
article was not in effect at the time the article was published and that, in
any event, the referenced guidance was misrepresented. It questioned the
accuracy of any reference to the guidance cited given that the Trust had
announced 8 months previously that this was under review. It provided an email
in which the Trust confirmed that the guidance had been removed from its
website (although the email did not say that it was withdrawn). It said that in
these circumstances, a separate piece of guidance by the Trust should have been
cited, which stated that “Transgender people should be accommodated according
to their presentation (the way they dress, and the name and pronouns that they
currently use).” In any event, the complainant said that neither piece of
guidance supported the claims in the article that patients "will be
admitted based on the gender which they identify as at the point of admission”,
“it will not be based on physical characteristics or the person proving they
have legally changed their gender or name” and that “transgender people must be
able to use the facilities of their preferred gender while admitted”. Neither
piece of guidance would give transgender sex offenders the right to be placed
on female wards based solely on self-identification; the determination would be
made by the hospital and would be based on a range of factors, including risk
posed to fellow patients.
15. The
complainant then identified a further inaccuracy within the second article,
which reported that “a physically intact male had the right to choose to be
accommodated on a female ward and to use women’s lavatories and facilities” as
“a result” of “an instruction by NHS England”. It said that it was clearly
inaccurate that a cisgender man would have the right to be accommodated on a
female ward and that – if the phrase “physically intact male” was intended to
refer to transgender women – that the right for transgender women to be housed
on a female ward was in fact a qualified right. NHS guidance, the complainant
said, makes clear that the right for a transgender woman to access female-only
facilities in hospitals can be overridden should there be a proportionate
reason to do so and doing so would achieve a legitimate aim. The complainant
further said that NHS England policy clearly stated that transgender women with
male genitalia cannot use open showers intended for women, and explicit NHS
guidance indicates a requirement for “sufficient privacy” to maintain the
dignity and privacy of everyone – by way of the use of, for instance, privacy
curtains and screens. The complainant provided copies of the relevant NHS
England guidance, as well as guidance from four NHS Trust Foundations.
16.
Regarding the admittance of transgender patients to single-sex wards, the
guidance provided by the complainant said as follows:
Trans
people should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way they
dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use. […] It applies to toilet
and bathing facilities (except, for instance, that preoperative trans people
should not share open shower facilities). [NHS England, Delivering same-sex
accommodation]
17. The
complainant said that only the removal of the online version of the article
would address its concerns and resolve the complaint.
18. The
publication noted that a paraphrased quote from a spokesperson for Devon
Partnership NHS Trust made clear that it was “was reviewing the policy to
ensure “the safety of our patients and staff”; the publication also noted that
no new guidance had been produced which superseded the under-review guidance.
Therefore, it did not accept that it was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted
for the article to report on the guidance under review.
19. The
publication then said that it was satisfied that the articles accurately
reported on the relevant NHS guidance, and said that Trusts which “allow
patients to choose which wards they are treated on, on the basis of
self-identification rather than their presentation” go beyond what was required
of the Equality Act. However, to avoid confusion, it amended the article on 14
October 2021 to remove the word “legally” from the following sentence: “[t]here
is no requirement for the person to have begun to legally change their gender,
as is specified under equality laws”. It said that this was done to avoid
confusion between the requirements of the Equality Act and the Gender
Recognition Act, though it noted that the latter piece of legislation was not
referenced anywhere in the coverage under complaint.
20. It
further noted that the complainant was not complaining on behalf of any of the
Trusts referenced within the articles, and therefore was not in a position to
have a direct understanding of the various Trusts’ position on the admission of
transgender patients.
21. The
publication, noting that should the complaint be upheld by IPSO it could not
require the removal of the online article, declined to remove it to resolve the
complaint. Finally, it said that the thrust of the articles was not “focused on
how self-identification is defined, and the shades of difference between gender
presentation, self-identification, gender reassignment etc”. Rather, the
articles reported on how “trans patients who pose safety and security concerns
for other patients on a ward are not being adequately evaluated and Trusts are
not making appropriate use of their ability to deny access to single-sex wards
and thus leaving patients vulnerable. The article correctly states that a
criminal history of serious sexual offending is not deemed a bar to admission
onto a single sex ward, and in many cases risk assessments are not even carried
out.”
Relevant
Code Provisions
Clause 1
(Accuracy)
i) The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected,
promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology
published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the
regulator.
iii) A
fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when
reasonably called for.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings
of the Committee
22. The
focus of the article was on hospitals’ treatment of transgender patients
pursuant to issued guidance and the legal requirements. The publication had
accepted that the claim in the second article that “[h]ospitals are exempt from
the Equalities Act” was inaccurate; hospitals are bound by the Equalities Act
subject to exceptions, which apply “in exceptional circumstances […] on a
case-by-case basis”. The publication also appeared to accept that there was no
requirement under the Equality Act for an individual to have begun the process
of “legally changing their gender” before being afforded the right to be housed
in a hospital ward according to their gender identity. While the publication
said that it had consulted the Act before publication, the publication of these
inaccuracies on a matter of public record – the content of the relevant
legislation – represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the
article in breach of Clause 1 (i). Given that the focus of the article was on
hospitals’ treatment of transgender patients pursuant to their legal
obligations, the inaccuracies regarding the details of those obligations were
significant and required correction.
23. The
publication had published a print correction, and had amended the online
article and added a footnote correction, to address the inaccuracy in the
second print article and in the online article concerning the Equalities Act.
The correction was made promptly – 5 and 6 days after it became aware of the
complaint about the online article and the print article respectively – and
appeared in duly prominent positions, as a footnote to the amended online
article and within an established corrections and clarifications column on page
2 of the newspaper. The article had also been amended a further time, 2 months
after the publication was made aware of the complaint, to remove the word
“legally” from the passage which referenced the requirements of equality laws;
however, this point was already covered in the wording of the footnote
correction, which had been published two months prior and made clear that
“under the Act [hospitals] have to admit people to single sex spaces based on
the gender they present as, except in exceptional circumstances” – therefore
the true position was made clear prior to the second amendment.
24. The
Committee noted that the wording of the print correction included a slight
error – it referenced the first article under complaint as being the article in
which the inaccuracy had been published, rather than the second – but the
Committee did not consider this affected the adequacy of the remedy; readers
would be able to locate the original article in need of correction, since both articles appeared on the same page of
the print edition and addressed the same topic. There was, therefore, no breach
of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.
25. The
second print article had reported that “a physically intact male had the right
to choose to be accommodated on a female ward and to use women’s lavatories and
facilities” as “a result” of “an instruction by NHS England”. The complainant
challenged this on the basis that this suggested inaccurately that hospitals
made decisions based on self-identification rather than the presentation of
patients; that it was not a “right” because the hospital could make a decision
should there be a proportionate reason to do so and if doing so would achieve a
legitimate aim; and that the article did not make clear that there was an
exception relating to open shower facilities.
26. The
Committee noted the wording of NHS England’s guidance, which stated that:
“Trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way
they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use. […] It applies to
toilet and bathing facilities (except, for instance, that preoperative trans
people should not share open shower facilities)”. The Committee took into account that the
wording of the guidance was set out in the article immediately before the
passage under complaint. The Committee did not consider that the newspaper’s
characterisation of the effect of the guidance was significantly inaccurate;
rather than speaking in terms of “self-identification” or “presentation” it was
making the broader point about the way in which the NHS guidance allowed a
patient to influence the decision by making personal choices, which might
include the way a person chooses to dress, and the name and pronouns by which
they choose to be called. Read in its entirety, and where a Trust’s
spokesperson was elsewhere quoted as saying that “there may be instances when
further consideration may be needed as to how best to manage a trans
patient", the article was not
claiming that the decision as to which ward a patient is to be admitted can be
made solely on the part of a patient with no input from the hospital Trust in
question. Therefore, omitting a further express reference to the risk
assessments that some trans patients would undergo before being admitted to
wards based on their choice of gender-presentation did not make the article
significantly misleading, inaccurate, or distorted on this point in breach of
Clause 1.
27. The
Committee then noted that the wording of the article, “lavatories and
facilities”, closely echoed the phrase used in the guidance, “toilet and
bathing facilities”; it did not consider that the omission of the detail
relating to open showering rendered the reference misleading or inaccurate,
where it was not in dispute that it was the case that trans women in prisons
who had not undergone gender reassignment facilities did have the right to use
the facilities of their lived gender, barring specific exceptions.
28. The
Committee turned next to the headline of the first article, which the
complainant said was not supported by the text of the article because it did
not make clear that hospitals would also undertake a risk assessment. The complainant also said that the headline,
and the headline of the online article, misleadingly suggested that they were
reporting on a new development. Headlines are necessarily summaries of the content
of articles and the first article made clear that a risk assessment ought also
to be undertaken in such circumstances, but concerns had been expressed that
this was not always the case. The publication was entitled to report on matters
which it considered to be of interest to its readers, in this case concerns
which had been expressed about patient safety in hospitals; the headlines did
not suggest that the guidance was new and patient safety concerns were
considered in light of the prevailing guidance and legislation. Where the
headlines were supported by the text of the articles and were not misleading,
there was no breach of Clause 1.
29. The
complainant had also said that it was inaccurate for the first and online
article to report that that “male-born sex offenders who self-identify as women
can be placed on female-only NHS wards”. The Committee noted that the articles
did not report that self-identification was the sole criteria which would be
considered or that such offenders would necessarily be treated in this way
without any further risk assessments being undertaken. Where the guidance of at
least 3 NHS Trusts did not state that a history of sexual offences was a bar to
admittance to female wards, the Committee did not consider the article to be
inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 on this point.
30. The
complainant had also raised concerns that the article both misrepresented the
guidance issued by NHS Trusts and inaccurately reported that guidance from
Devon Partnership Trust was still in place. The Committee acknowledged the
complainant’s point that the guidance issued by many NHS Trusts referred to
presentation rather than self-identification, but noted that the guidance
issued by one NHS Trust mentioned in the article referred to self-identification.
The guidance of the other NHS Trusts mentioned in the article had been quoted,
together with comments about the issued guidance which had been made by the
Trusts. The article made clear – via a quote from Devon Partnership Trust –
that the Devon guidance referenced in the article was under review, but it had
not been formally withdrawn. The newspaper was entitled to reference it, and
the references to it in the article were not inaccurate. There was no breach of
Clause 1 on these points.
Conclusion(s)
31. The
complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).
Remedial
Action Required
32. The
published correction put the correct position on record and was offered and
published promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.
Date
complaint received: 03/08/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 14/02/2022
Back to ruling listing