Scottish Government staff networks: whose voice is heard?
Introduction
On 18 March, the outgoing Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government, John Paul Marks, gave evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee of the Scottish Parliament, with the Director-General Corporate, Lesley Fraser. During the session, SNP MSP Michelle Thomson asked about the representation of women staff in the Scottish Government. This blog considers the answers given by Mr Marks and Ms Fraser. It then looks more generally at what is known about staff networks in the Scottish Government, the implications of that for decision-making affecting staff, and what that is likely to mean for the wider climate for policy-making in the Scotland.
The Scottish Government emerges as a further example of a major public organisation that has no network which supports women in advocating for their interests and concerns in the workplace based on their sex. Further internal minuting released under Freedom of Information (FoI) sheds light on why there appears to be no active network in the Scottish Government representing staff of both sexes who want to defend the view that sex is real, immutable and binary, and that sometimes that matters.
We argue that what happens inside the Scottish Government matters more widely. If the Government’s own internal structures and culture, and policies, are imbalanced in the treatment of different groups and their interests and rights, then this has a clear potential to have a wider effect across public policy and practice in Scotland more generally.
Are women on the Scottish Government radar?
At the meeting on 18 March, the Permanent Secretary was asked what groups are in place to represent women employees. The exchanges are described below, with comments, taken from the recording of the session, available here (from 10.19 onwards).
Michelle Thomson
In terms of the headcount of the civil service, it’ll help me with my figures, what percentage, roughly, of them are women, of the overall head count?
John-Paul Marks
Over 50 per cent? [Turns to Lesley Fraser, who agrees]. Yes.
Comment: The Scottish Government records 57% of its workforce, by headcount, as female. For this figure it uses actual sex, unless a person has a GRC.
Michelle Thomson
Okay. So obviously as we know, women have got specific considerations, whether it is pregnancy, maternity leave, menopause and so on. So in the civil service, what groups are there in place to represent women’s voices in particular?
John-Paul Marks
So we have a number of staff networks, including staff networks to represent gender interests, women’s interests, in that regard and we will make sure that we’re listening to feedback.
Lesley’s got the various diversity data, in terms of the breakdown of our workforce. We have a diversity and inclusion strategy and, as you say, we make sure we’ve taken steps of course to assure ourselves under the Equality Act 2010 and Workplace Regulations that we are providing all the right flexibility and support that we should.
It does also come down to culture and making sure that we are being—
Comment: The Permanent Secretary appeared not to know the answer to the question.
Michelle Thomson
I’m going to come on to that. In terms of the groups you’ve mentioned, can I assume, then, that one of them that you’ve referenced there is the Women’s Development Network?
[John-Paul Marks turns to Lesley Fraser]
Lesley Fraser
There is the Women’s Development Network and a Minority Ethnic Women’s Group as well.
Michelle Thomson
Is it in the public domain that the Women’s Development Network allows men to self-identify as women?
[John-Paul Marks turns to Lesley Fraser, while appearing to say “Not sure”]
Lesley Fraser
That probably brings us to our trans and non-binary policy, which is there to enable that all of our colleagues can operate in a way that gives us, we hope, an inclusive and welcoming culture and that includes recognising those colleagues who identify as trans, for example.
Comment: This response moved immediately away from the representation of women, and any questions about how a self-ID definition might affect that, and onto the representation of another group. There is some information published about the Women’s Development Network, but we were unable to find further published information about the Minority Ethnic Women’s Group.
Michelle Thomson
Okay, so I suspect that we will probably go on to that. But I just wanted to be clear, there was a freedom of information released on 31 January 2025 that notes, and I quote, that
“the Women’s Development Network aims to create a supportive platform and level-playing field for women (and those who identify as women)”— so, self-ID.
Scottish Parliament Finance and Public Administration committee, 18 March 2025, transcription of recording
Comment: The Women’s Development Network appears focused on leadership development, rather than broader representation. The FoI referred to by Michelle Thomson states (emphasis added):
‘The Women’s Development Network (WDN) aims to create a supportive platform and level-playing field for women (and those who identify as women) across the Civil Service in Scotland. The WDN is designed to provide a dedicated space for women to define and pursue personal and professional development. The network acts as a forum to understand, discuss, and address some of the barriers which still exist between women and leadership in the Civil Service, while also working collaboratively with other networks to acknowledge the intersectionality of women’s issues. The WDN provides women with opportunities to talk, listen, and share experiences – so that everyone can learn together and ‘lift as we climb.’
Scottish Government, Freedom of Information response, 23 January 2025
After this, the discussion moved on to the content of the Scottish Government’s policies for access to facilities provided separately women and men, which its Trans and Non Binary Equality and Inclusion Policy says should be based on how a person identifies.
We raised concerns about this policy with the Equalities, Civil Justice and Human and Human Rights Committee of the Scottish Parliament in February. We have also drawn our concerns to the attention of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
So who counts? Scottish Government staff networks
An internal Scottish Government staff diversity article show 21 recognised staff networks in the Scottish Government plus a small number of “staff interest groups”. These are grouped under six headings as “equality groups”, one of which is “sex” (see FoI response, pages 42-3).
Senior government representation for equality groups
According to the Scottish Government’s most recent Consolidated Accounts, each equality group is represented by a member of the Executive Team and a Senior Civil Servant member. The Executive Team is the the top-level senior team in Scottish Government civil service. The SCS covers the wider senior management group across the organisation.
“Diversity staff networks provide peer support and make connections that build the sense of belonging, a core aspect of inclusion. The Scottish Government has a long history of supporting diversity staff networks. Introduced in 2022, the network support framework offers corporate support along with an Executive Team Ally and a Senior Civil Servant (SCS) Champion for each equality group.
Designated diversity staff networks represent the collective interests of their network members. Staff diversity networks help us make our best and most inclusive employer policies and services and they raise awareness of issues and challenges relating to employee experience in the workplace.”
The Scottish Government Consolidated Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2024, page 92.
The names of the senior Champion and Ally for each “equality group” are redacted in the FoI response showing the staff networks, even though these are senior civil service roles, not normally covered by redaction rules. However, the Scottish Government 2023 Stonewall submission identifies Caroline Lamb, Chief Executive of NHS Scotland and Director General Health and Social Care, as the Executive Team Ally for the LGBTI+ Staff Network.
We could not readily identify who undertakes this role for the “equality group” of “sex”. We note, however, that this group covers the Women’s Development Network, the Ethnic Minority Women’s Network, and the Men’s Mental Health Network. This means the SCS Champion and the Executive Team Ally for ‘sex’ explicitly covers men and women: all staff, in effect.
Shaping culture
Scottish Government also says (emphasis added) staff networks play a role in:
“.. encouraging members to help positively shape the culture of the Scottish Government and create safer and more inclusive workplaces. Some may also choose to use their lived experience to increase understanding of the challenges faced by their members to the wider organisation. They may work with corporate teams on action to improve experience at work.”
Scottish Government article Overview of staff networks Freedom of Information response, page 41.
There does not seem to be any information publicly available on whether staff networks in the Scottish Government are expected to have any constitution or rules, dealing with matters such as membership, transparency of decision-making, decisions on who speaks on their behalf or consultation with the staff whose views they are treated as representing. In this respect, they appear rather more informal than trades unions.
The 2022 Scottish Government Stonewall Staff Survey (here) provides some relevant data for one network: asked if they agreed that “the LGBT or LGBTQ+ employee network group is welcoming of all LGBTQ+ employees”, responses ranged from 53% (those described as LGBTQ+ BAME/PoC) to 70% (those described as trans). Questions were not asked about accountability, transparency or satisfaction. Stonewall recommended giving the Network “access to a budget and development opportunities specific to the running of the network.”
Up to 2022, the Scottish Government did not provide financial support to any staff networks. The 2023 Stonewall submission however noted that some money had been set aside for staff networks collectively for holding events:
A £15,000 network budget to support high quality, accessible events was introduced in April 2022. The Calendar and its associated budget has been communicated to staff diversity networks through monthly meeting of Network leads, it is set out in a Network Support Framework document available to all networks through the SG learning platform ‘Pathways’ and by Executive Team, Diversity and Inclusion Champion in a meeting with all staff diversity network champions and chairs in June 2022. As of September 2022 one third of the budget has been committed to different networks.
Scottish Government Submission to Stonewall Workplace Equality Index (2023), page 51.
Access to internal decision-making
Staff networks give those involved more access to management and more influence in the organisation in several ways.
Oversight of diversity and inclusion activity
Six of the staff networks sit on the Scottish Government ‘governance group’ for its Diversity and inclusion employer strategy. These are the Women’s Development Network, the Disabled Staff Network, the Faith and Belief Network, the LGBTI+ Network, the Race Equality Network, and the Socio Economic Development Network.
The governance group is described as “a key internal point of accountability for employer diversity and inclusion efforts.” According to the Consolidated Accounts, it “will oversee successful implementation of the strategy, monitoring the pace and the scale of impact.” The group is also attended by “Senior leaders accountable for delivery of actions in their functional areas and role modelling the changes we want to see”. The group is chaired by the Executive Team ‘Ally for diversity and inclusion’, Lesley Fraser, quoted above.
Data gathering
Staff networks have been involved in an initiative “to fill gaps in qualitative data for developing the strategy and for ongoing use in corporate Equality Impact Assessments. This was co-designed by diversity staff networks and delivered by the Strategy and Insights Team. Employees from all equality groups…shared perceptions and expectations around inclusion issues and what they would like to see in the future.” The Scottish Government published data is not consistent in how it reports information about female and male employees.
Internal processes, including Equality Impact Assessments
The Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) for Scottish Government’s Trans and Non Binary Equality and Inclusion Policy shows a staff network being given a formal role. This process was overseen by a group led by the Deputy Director, People Development, with, as further members: the Head of Diversity and Inclusion, 4 LGBTI Policy Team members, 2 LGBTI+ Network members, and 4 trades unions representatives (2 from PCS and 2 from the FDA). No other staff networks were on the group.
The impact assessment includes this comment (emphasis added):
‘Our recent experience of moderating comments on Saltire (intranet) articles has shown increasing tension between holding a belief and manifesting that belief in the workplace. There is disagreement about the definition and meaning of some terms (‘sex’, ‘gender’, ‘gender identity’) and their neutrality. There is evidence that it would be beneficial to increase understanding about the use of pronouns in email signatures (entirely voluntary in SG). All this has caused distress to members of staff networks including the LGBTI+ network, and has affected their sense of safety at work.’
SG Trans Policy and Guidance Review 2021/2022: EQIA (page 8)
In considering the potential impact of the policy for the characteristic of “sex”, it states
“The trans policy and guidance is not considered to have a positive or negative impact on eliminating discrimination for men and women.”
“Removing the term “assigned gender”, and retaining “sex assigned at birth” rather than changing to “gender assigned at birth” and deciding against the proposal to describe gender reassignment as “contentious” is likely to have a positive impact on fostering good relations for protected characteristic of sex and philosophical belief. Adding cis/cisgender to the glossary has the potential for negative impact on the protected characteristics of sex and philosophical belief particularly in relation to fostering good relations. Some groups consider cisgender/cis to be a slur. In recognition of this, the definition includes the statement “A person’s self description should be respected above any guidance in this document” which is considered to mitigate any negative impact.”
The imbalance in the groups assessing the impact of this policy was raised at the 18 March Committee meeting (available in the recording of session at 10.31).
Michelle Thomson
….the EqIA itself states it’s relevant to four other protected characteristics—disability, age, sex, and religion/belief, but none of those groups were represented in the process of developing that EqIA. Six out of 10 places in the steering group, other than the lead official, were set aside for staff representing LGBTI interests. Is that weighting how you normally try to meet the public sector equality duty?
John-Paul Marks
No, I think, you know, the diversity inclusion team, and the strategy and the way in which we work, by definition, seeks to be inclusive of everyone. We’ve got a lot—
But why would it exclude then representation of those four other protected characteristics?
John-Paul Marks
Unless, Lesley, you’ve got any more detail on that? We’d have to…
Lesley Fraser
I do not have that detail.
It would be useful to understand in fact the relative weighting of a multitude of EqIAs and how you assess that all protected characteristics are recognised.
Running events
Staff networks are able to run events for staff using government facilities. In 2022 details of material shared as part of an event run by the Scottish Government LGBT+ Staff Network for Pride Month were reported in the press, as including “claims that so-called “gender critical” women or “terfs” (trans exclusionary radical feminists) “hate all trans people” and “that biological sex is a “falsehood”.”
The Scottish Government commented to the media that, “This was an informal awareness raising event, held during Pride Month and within working hours, run by LGBTI+ network community members which colleagues can voluntarily choose to attend.” This event is part of the complaint in the ongoing employment tribunal referred to below. How far employers are responsible for training events run by staff networks in the workplace, regardless of whether they are informal or voluntary, has been raised as an issue in the current case of Newman v The Metropolitan Police.
Access to senior staff
Harder to trace but at least as important as more formal roles, is how having a staff network gives certain groups a strong voice within an organisation more generally, especially with the most senior staff. The Scottish Government’s 2023 submission to the Stonewall Workplace Diversity Index includes lots of material setting out senior management activity with the relevant staff network. For example,
The LGBTI+ staff network committee has close contact with both senior champions and Executive Team ally, and engages them on LGBTI+ messaging, LGBTI+ network decisions that impact on members, as well as sharing insight and lived experience on issues impacting on members in the workplace to contribute to and inform organisational improvements. There have been occasions during the past year when the champions have played an active and valuable role in both supporting network members and advocating on their behalf at senior leader level.
Scottish Government, Submission to the Stonewall Workplace Diversity Index 2023 (page 52)
and
Senior leadership regularly engage with the LGBTI+ network. JP Marks (new Permanent Secretary) met with the LGBTI+ network leads and SCS Champions, twice during this induction following his appointment. He also jointed the wider network to participate in activities during LGBT History Month and Pride.
Members of the board and senior management have regularly met with the LGBTI+ Network throughout he past year. Lesley Fraser (ET Diversity and Inclusion Champion) has specifically engaged with the network (3 times in the first six months of 2022, with the most recent meeting being on 6th September) as part of the consultation around the Network Support Strategy.The Director for Equality, Inclusion and Human Rights met with the network on 22nd June for an ‘In Conversation’ event.
Scottish Government, Submission to the Stonewall Workplace Diversity Index 2023 (pages 85-6)
Some material in the submission refers to meetings with all the main staff networks. Published evidence does not provide as much information on the extent other networks have equivalent levels of separate access to senior staff as the LGBT+ one, although this FoI response from 2020 reports on senior management engagement that year specifically with the Race Equality Network.
An earlier FoI response, reported at the time, shows that at an internal staff Q&A in June 2021, Joe Griffin, who is replacing John Paul Marks as Permanent Secretary this month, being asked:
“there was quite a lengthy discussion on [pronouns and email signatures] on Saltire recently… it’s quite an important way of getting discussions around gender normalised within the workplace, and is also a very effective way of preventing misgendering, which can be really distressing for those who do not identify as the gender of their birth or prefer gender neutral terms. And I was just wondering if there’s any ideas for those on the panel for how we can help normalise this and make this a part of our culture in Scottish Government?”
He responded (emphasis added):
“…much less difficult and much less complex [than handling GRA reform] is the need to respect the fact that nobody but nobody deserves to have their identity challenged in a workplace environment. We don’t do that for race. We don’t do that for disability. It sometimes feels to me as though trans issues somehow occupies a different space whereby people feel free to challenge the fundamentals of somebody’s identity and use language in a way that we wouldn’t on any other aspect of people’s characteristics and I feel incredibly strongly about this and as Leslie [Evans, Permanent Secretary in 2021] said it’s us thing it’s not a them thing you know we all have friends and relations with experience of gender reassignment or transition issues and just yesterday I was talking with colleagues who were so upset by the experience last week and some of the comments back and forth on Saltire that they were in tears at the time, they were in tears again yesterday, so this isn’t hard. There is a way to have a dialogue, there is a way to be respectful to seek understanding and nobody but nobody in a workplace environment should have the fundamental aspect of their identity challenged in the way that we did see some of that last week.”
It is not made clear here whether the colleagues who spoke to Joe Griffin did so as members of the LGBT+ Network, but from other published material, this seems at least possible.
What about staff who believe that sex matters?
SEEN in the Civil Service
Although Scottish Government civil servants are employees of the Scottish Government, they are also appointed to the UK-wide civil service.
The UK-wide Sex Equality and Equity Network (SEEN) in the Civil Service is not a women-only network, but does argue for the significance of sex, distinct from how people may identify. Although the establishment of the network in UK government departments has not been easy,1 it is formally recognised by the UK Government. Its entry on the government website states:
‘SEEN is a staff network committed to promoting and supporting sex equality and equity between women and men in our workplaces, and helping all staff to thrive at work and fulfil their potential. The focus of our network is on challenging sex discrimination and upholding rights and protections that relate to sex … We recognise that to achieve this and ensure sex equality and equity sometimes requires treating women and men differently, according to our different rights and needs.
We are also committed to the protected belief (covered by the protected characteristic of religion and belief in the Equality Act 2010) that biological sex is binary and immutable, that biological sex matters for both women and men in our everyday lives, including for our rights and needs in the workplace, and that biological sex must not be conflated with, or replaced by, the concepts of gender or gender identity.’
The Network describes itself as open to ‘any UK civil servants and public sector staff – from central and devolved government departments, agencies, and their associated public bodies including arm’s length bodies.’
SEEN in Scotland
SEEN in the Civil Service wrote to the Scottish Government and other organisations with civil service staff in Scotland in April 2024 to raise concerns about a loss of impartiality within government (Freedom of Information, see page 4).
The letter reported a meeting of staff from several different government departments and agencies in Scotland, including the Scottish Government. It states that “the discussion was rather startling and revealed that members had frequently joined SEEN because they had had experienced a wide variety of generally negative behaviours at work in relation to Sex and Gender identity issues.”
It noted staff feeling more often that they needed to use formal processes in relation to these issues, concerns about training materials, members feeling “afraid or unwilling” to raise relevant directly relevant to their work, due to fear of the reaction, concern that employers and HR teams are not managing the issues well, and reluctance to refer at work to relevant family situations. It also raised “concerns about loss of impartiality with the civil service and public sector and a tendency towards politically oriented activism rather than evidence-based policy and decision-making on these issues,” and a “general and worrying” sense that the recognition of sex was declining as an important characteristic in multiple settings.
It added that “awareness of SEEN is disappointingly low in Scotland”, and asked if it could be promoted along with other staff networks, on staff intranets and noticeboards and leadership interest.
In an article written later (presumably about the same meeting) a member of SEEN in Scotland wrote:
Chilling, silencing, fear and hurt were common themes at the first meeting to establish a Scotland Group of members of SEEN, along with frustration that such emotions are provoked for holding what are in reality widely held and evidence-based beliefs – that biological sex is real, immutable and in many cases important…
From a personal perspective, it is clear that the “bring your whole self to work” ethos does not apply if that includes having concerns around the impact of implementing policies based on belief in the concept of gender identity.
SEEN in Scotland 7 November 2024
Seen but not heard
The Scottish Government responded to the SEEN letter in May 2024. It stated:
Scottish Government has a staff diversity network infrastructure and network support framework that sits separately to other departmental and cross-departmental UK civil service staff networks. We do not have a direct relationship with any cross-departmental network… [but] Staff are also encouraged to join cross departmental UK Government networks that may be relevant to their interests… While we encourage core Scottish Government staff to join and participate in networks, network activity is entirely self-organising and self-promoting. We have no central role in promoting any individual or specific staff network to increase its visibility, presence or membership. That would be a matter for and responsibility of, networks themselves.
Scottish Government email, 7 May 2024 (Freedom of Information response, page 6)
SEEN in the Civil Service therefore is not among the networks organised inside the Scottish Government. It remains outside the Ally/Champion structure, and has no recognised voice or senior official blessing to organise. The comment that “we have no central role in promoting any individual or specific staff network to increase its visibility, presence or membership” does not quite convey the advantages recognised staff networks can have. For example, some recruitment material highlights the existence of the main groups.2
A ‘disciplinary matter’
An earlier exchange of internal emails, released under FoI (see pages 71-76 here) illustrate the challenge facing Scottish Government staff who might wish to organise a network based on recognising the reality of sex, whether for women only or all staff. The emails are identifiably related to an ongoing employment tribunal brought against the Scottish Government.3
On 5 December 2022, a staff member shared a link to the (then) new UK Civil Service SEEN Network on an internal Scottish Government social networking service (Yammer). The Yammer post said:
“This is a pretty new gender critical staff network for the UK Civil Service. It doesn’t cover the devolved government though. Does anyone know if anything similar is in the works here?”
Scottish Government staff, Yammer post 5 December 2022
Material produced for the tribunal shows that critical responses made to the post included comments such as: “I would hope not”, “No and I don’t want to see one here”, “I REALLY hope not. Having looked at this page, I am utterly astonished this is welcomed by the civil service… attitudes like this should not be shared in a work forum”, “I’d be very disappointed and frustrated to see anything like this in Scottish Government”, “It’s encouraging to see how colleagues are reacting to this horrendous news about the UK civil service”, “[the post concerns] a belief system that serves to debate and undermine colleagues who are that demographic and who may be reading it and feeling incredibly stressed and threatened as a result”, “…this is so blatantly a discriminatory group that I would expect involvement in it being a disciplinary matter.” One of comments was ‘liked’ by nearly 40 staff. Material produced for the tribunal showed no supportive comments, though two respondents had asked neutral questions.
Formal complaint
On 8 December, an email titled ‘Inappropriate behaviour complaint’ was sent from an unnamed member of staff based in the First Minister’s Policy Unit to Scottish Government management, on behalf of the LGBTI+ Staff Network Committee. This included the following comments:
The post remaining on Yammer for days had a significant impact on LGBTI+ network members. We have had general complaints by email from a number of members including statements like:
While I am not a member of the trans community, I have many friends who are and I am finding the original post, and some subsequent replies, very inflammatory and upsetting. … I fear for the mental health of our trans and non-binary friends, family, and colleagues. I know it had an impact on me all day yesterday, and now it is impacting my day today.
And the following from a trans colleague:
it made me feel really uncomfortable and anxious. It kept going through my head for the rest of the day making it hard to get work done because it made me feel unwelcome. I was working from my own home where I should never feel unwelcome or out of place.
I have bad anxiety being around people in general and this is feeling like another hurdle for going into the office on my in office days despite my branch head being an ally and very supportive of me when she found out I’d come out. This is just going round and round in my head and I’m not coping well. I am lucky that I have a routine call with my psychiatrist this morning. I am still struggling to get on with my job today as can’t get this unsettled feeling to settle down.
There has also been general discussion and upset about the post in private yammer groups and expressed in private messages to Committee members.
Email correspondence, First Minister’s Policy Unit, On behalf of the LGBTI+ Staff Network Committee, 8 December 2022 (see FoI response pages 74-76)
A response on behalf of Scottish Government management to the LGBT+ Staff Network notes (emphasis added):
“The [original] yammer post was determined, at that point [when originally made], not to, in itself, be a breach of the policy. This decision was not made lightly… The cabinet office have also acknowledged that the current legal landscape affords protected characteristic status to gender critical belief. It would be discriminatory to remove content simply expressing that personal belief… I know and understand that this will not be welcome, and even worrying news…I’ve been advised any internal policy does not trump either the Equality Act or the Civil Service Code, both of which have a statutory basis.”
Scottish Government internal email, 15 December 2022 (see FoI response page 71).
The response also noted that the Yammer post (and replies) had been removed later. This was described as being because the author of the original post had sought clarification of some of the critical responses by sending individual workplace emails, rather than responding to them publicly on Yammer.
It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that the SEEN network still does not appear to be organising to become part of the recognised system of staff network in the Scottish Government.
What about UK-wide civil service staff networks?
There are just under 30 recognised UK-level civil service staff networks. The Scottish Government’s LGBT+ Network appears to be part of a larger UK-wide Network and so the only one recognised by both the UK and Scottish governments.
There is not a UK-level network for women, defined in any way, which staff in the Scottish Government can join.
The UK Cross-Government Gender Network is for “women, men, intersex, transgender colleagues, and non-binary people”. A response to the Yammer post above noted that in late 2022 it had been active in Scotland but was now dormant. Also, at UK-level, a:gender provides “the support network for trans and intersex staff across Government.”
Conclusion
“I am firm believer in the power of the networks to be able to help us do precisely what you’re saying [redacted] to help us build that positive culture… the networks could really help us turn that into practical difference and change on the ground and that goes for creating the spaces where people can talk about you know difficult things just as we’ve been discussing, places where change ideas can be first of all identified, what needs to change, but also then very practical suggestions can come to the fore… So I’m a huge fan, I’m really grateful and I do think there’s a powerful role for networks in terms of how we rebuild the culture and the working environment of the organisation in what will be a different future.”
Lesley Fraser, Scottish Government Staff Q&A, June 2021
In recent years staff networks have become a more prominent feature of many workplaces. They operate alongside, and sometimes work closely with trades unions. How they are constituted and make decisions, and how those leading them are accountable to the wider membership, is however, generally unclear. One driver for this development has been Stonewall’s detailed requirements of employers seeking to improve their ranking in its Workplace Equality Index, as shown by the Scottish Government ‘s submissions to that (submissions prior to 2023 are available here).
The increasing influence of staff networks has coincided with the strong promotion of gender self-identification to employers, by Stonewall and others. The ability of women staff to come together and articulate concerns based on their sex has therefore been weakened, as staff networks in general, in particular those prioritising gender identity over sex, have acquired more influence. Put another way, new opportunities for advocacy in the workplace have opened up. But not for women.
The Scottish Government is a clear example of a major public organisation that has no network for women which conforms to the Equality Act 2010,4 but does have a well-positioned staff network advocating strongly for self-ID.
Other examples include higher education. We looked at the representation of women staff in universities in 2022. We repeated that work for this report on Athena Swan published last year, concluding:
Overall, among the AS Silver institutions we surveyed, institutional support and representation specifically for female staff was virtually non-existent…The responses also demonstrate the confusion that has been sown around ordinary terms such as ‘single-sex’ and ‘female’… it was also difficult to decipher what ‘woman’ meant for those groups which did not specify their terms.
Looking to the wider implications, a lack of organised capacity to engage with and strategically influence university policy is likely to put women at a systematic disadvantage. Women’s experiences within the university sector differ from those of men, due variously to structures and systems that tend to work better for men, physical experiences that are unique to women, or simply sexist behaviour. Pay and promotion continue to differ sharply by sex.
We have also looked at this issue in the context of the Police Scotland, where the LGBT+ staff at work is extremely active.
Putting women at a disadvantage
Women staff in the Scottish Government, universities, policing and other comparable organisations, are at a disadvantage in raising workplace concerns based on sex. These include concerns about the provision of single sex-spaces, and the ability to talk about that in clear language.
In later responses to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, the outgoing Permanent Secretary John Paul Marks said that no complaints had been made to him about the loss of single-sex changing or toilet facilities. Yet with no relevant network that staff can go through collectively to raise such complaints, and a well-supported network taking the opposite view, his comment sounded at best naive.
By contrast, the exchanges relating to the post about SEEN on Yammer in December 2022 show a staff network being used to channel group complaints and place pressure on management to take specific actions, including against another member of staff. The attitudes revealed towards the SEEN network in internal minuting, and the reported experiences of those involved in it, help to explain why no such network is operational in the Scottish Government.
What happens inside the Scottish Government matters more widely.5 Sometimes, the Scottish Government’s involvement in decision-making is direct, as in its input into drafting policies about self-identification for the NHS. Sometimes, it is exercised through issuing guidance, such as its schools’ guidance or through funding.
Its influence may also be felt more generally, in the way its culture makes the weather for policy-makers inside and outside the organisation, such as the Scottish Prison Service. If the Government’s own internal structures and culture, and policies, are imbalanced in treatment of different groups and their interests and rights, then this has a clear potential to have a wider effect across public policy and practice. That concern is expressed in a further comment from the Scottish SEEN member quoted above, who also mentions
“significant concern around the impact on quality of work and professional standards in the workplace, such as the ability to freely interrogate policy, taking a balanced approach to consultation on the collection and recording of data, and taking a truly evidence-based approach to decision making.”
Day-to-day employer responsibilities in the Scottish Government rest with the leadership of the civil service, not politicians. After a period of relatively uncritical embrace of staff networks as major players, more questions need to be asked about which staff are being empowered by staff networks, and which voices are being made harder to hear, whether as groups or individuals. A hard look at how the increased role for staff networks has shaped internal decision-making and the performance of outward-facing responsibilities, not least for women and girls, is overdue.
Notes
- At the UK-level, two civil servants, and/or their departments, are facing separate legal action from a colleague, after setting up a SEEN network: see here and here. Neither case has been to a full hearing yet. Separately, a former UK civil servant recently agreed a settlement for £116,000, after facing harassment at work for rejecting gender identity beliefs. The relevant permanent secretaries have issued a joint statement, saying updated departmental policy “will balance the rights of staff with different protected characteristics, including but not limited to gender reassignment, religion and belief, and sex… A well-functioning civil service is one that allows its civil servants to safely hold, voice, discuss or challenge any lawful perspective, without fear or favour.” ↩︎
- Although the list still in use appears to be out of date, compared to other information available. ↩︎
- The member of staff who made the original Yammer post has confirmed to us that the emails released under FoI relate to the events covered in this employment tribunal brought by him after the termination of his contract as an agency employee without warning, two days after he had posted the question about SEEN on Yammer. Kenny McBride, representing himself, lost his employment appeal at first instance and is now in the later stages of seeking leave to appeal.
His case raises complaints about his experiences in the Scottish Government prior to making the post on Yammer, including at training events, and the handling of complaints and concerns raised about that, and his dismissal. The reason given for the termination of his contract was that he had harassed Scottish Government employees. McBride had responded to the critical comments on Yammer by sending six of the ten people who had posted critical or ambiguous comments short individual emails to their workplace email accounts, asking them to elaborate on what they had said. He corresponded further with the one person who responded, who argued the SEEN Network’s views were not compatible with the Scottish Government’s published policy on trans and non-binary inclusion and that, as a Diversity & Inclusion champion within Scottish Government, he had duty to challenge them, expressing the view that such beliefs should not be given a voice in the Scottish Government as a workplace, and that gender critical views could reasonably be assumed to be a form of discrimination.
Defending the termination of his contract, witnesses for the Scottish Government stressed that it was specifically the use of email to follow up comments made on Yammer that was the issue: “I think it’s the mode of communication rather than the content that is the problem”, “Not language no, but, mode of approaching, you say you are bypassing public conversation”, “You sound friendly, but, you are taking a public moderated safe discussion into private unmoderated space, you ask people personally, you should have used Yammer.” “If KM had stayed on Yammer, this would not have happened. He contacted people unsolicited, people who didn’t want to talk to him.” However, as noted above, some of the responses on Yammer explicitly criticised its use for this subject, and the email quoted from the LGBT+ Staff Network alleges that seeing the original post, of itself, was a problem for some staff. Scottish Government witnesses confirmed to the employment tribunal that no action was taken against any individuals who had replied to McBride on Yammer. Asked “is it reasonable for people to say that my post was unsafe?”, an Scottish Government witness replied “yes, because that is what they felt.”
The court at first instance accepted the Scottish Government’s argument that the level of distress some staff reported to management from receiving McBride’s emails provided reasonable grounds for acting as it did. Although in court the Scottish Government referred to other emails sent previously by McBride as part of pursuing concerns internally, it did not suggest that he had received previous warnings about emailing other staff, or that any of the staff emailed in response to their comments on Yammer had had previous contact from him.
[Source: Tribunal Tweets KMcBDay1Part2.pdf – Google Drive, Notes from ET Kenny McBride v Scottish Ministers_ 18.pdf – Google Drive, McBride vs Scottish Ministers 19 June 2024 (1).pdf – Google Drive, McBride v SM Submissions for the Respondent.pdf – Google Drive.] ↩︎ - In February 2022, the Court of Session found in favour of For Women Scotland, and against Scottish Government, that “sex” under the Equality Act is biological, and not based on self-ID. The Scottish Government accepted this as the starting point for the case currently before the Supreme Court, where only legal point still in dispute at the time of writing is the effect of a Gender Recognition Certificate under the Equality Act 2010. Despite this, the Scottish Government is continuing to treat a staff group, into which male staff can self-identify, as a group for women under the protected characteristic of “sex”. ↩︎
- This is issue also emerged in the Sullivan Review, published last month, to which we provided support, which recommended that “Organisations should consider carefully whether it is appropriate to include internal staff groups in consultations on data collection. This is unlikely to be appropriate when the data collection is external rather than internal and is not without risk in the case of internal data collection. The views on data collection of internal staff networks should not be given undue weight” (Recommendation 50) and “Ministers should consider the vulnerability of government and public bodies to internal activism that seeks to influence outward-facing policy, including through staff networks, and whether stronger safeguards are needed.” (Recommendation 57). ↩︎