NTU Gender Recognitions Act (GRA) Reform Consultation Analysis: Communications & Who wrote summary & overviews as it was not the analysis team etc.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Nottingham Trent University,
Freedom of information request of 26th September, 2020 to Nottingham Trent University

To:
Legal Services
Nottingham Trent University
50 Shakespeare Street
Nottingham
NG1 4FQ
[email address]

Subject: NTU Analysis of Gender Recognition Act (GRA) Reform Public Consultation

With reference to:
Press release: Government responds to Gender Recognition Act consultation
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gover...
Analysis of the responses to the Gender Recognition Act (2004) consultation
Analysis of the responses to the Government's 2018 consultation on the Gender Recognition Act (2004).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
Written Ministerial Statement: Response to Gender Recognition Act (2004) consultation
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/r...
and the
Expert Blog: Analysing the GRA consultation: reflections by the analysis team
Professor Daniel King, Professor Carrie Paechter and Dr Maranda Ridgway reflect on their work as analyst team for the Gender Recognition Act consultation
https://www.ntu.ac.uk/about-us/news/news... (accessed 26/09/2020)

1)
Copies of all communications between NTU and the UK Government related to the GRA Analysis work, all mediums.

2)
"We also did not write the executive summary, or the overviews of each question." (blog)

Please state who did: provide names, roles, and identify the employers of the people or people and government departments of those who did write the summary and overviews for each question.
Please all communications on this particular area are of particular interest (any and all forms).

3)
"The team included specialists in quantitative analysis, qualitative and interpretivist research, advanced Natural Language Processing and expertise in gender and trans (including non-binary) identities." (blog)

Please provide detailed information including names and qualifications for those who have "expertise in gender and trans (including non-binary) identities."

4)
a) Provide peer reviewed empirical evidence of 'identity' as used.
b) Provide source references to peer reviewed scientific studies that support the team’s position re. gender identity, trans identity and non-binary humans and non-binary identities, having substance or longevity
c) Please evidence of how one can have 'expertise' in something that does not exist - a 'non binary human'.
d) Explain and justify the use of ‘cisgender’ and ‘non trans women’ for women. In reality, in biology, and in law, it is sex, and women are a sex not a gender, and the category, the class and the word, do not include men. There is no subset of women that are male. Women are not cisgender whatever that means to NTU. Women at 50% plus of the population are not ‘non men’ and not ‘non trans women’. Explain why this terminology is used in an analysis; a purportedly independent professional unbiased analysis. This clearly shows a rejection of biological fact and a bias towards an ideology.
e) Provide the definition/categorisation used to describe someone or something as ‘feminist’.
f) Evidence was provided and well referenced in support of the material realities of sex but next to no mention is made of this evidence and the deconstruction and rejection of the false premises on which Gender Ideology is based, and the current law, and the proposal. Why?
g) I also know that there was substantial evidence and arguments put forward on the potential for fraud and the actual fraudulent misuse of ‘trans’ claims in prisons and elsewhere, including assaults on women in the female estate and in shelters and so on, but in the analysis dismissed as ‘newspaper articles’ yet NTU provided no evidence that these claims were untrue. Was this under instruction or straightforward bias?
h) Why was there no verification of the many claims/complaints re. the GRC process against available evidence from the tribunal itself as well as FOI responses available? Why was there no analysis?

5)
There was no reference to campaigns by the Equality Network including the Scottish Trans Alliance and LGBT Youth Scotland , please confirm that this was considered and explain the rejection criteria as they are not listed as a recognisable and significant campaign and influence.

6)
Please the supporting documentation and evidence for the listing of Amnesty International as a recognised/recognisable campaign.

Note:
Any and all statements made and references to intersex/DSDs/VSC must be backed up, supported with respected contemporary sources from genetics, biochemistry, neuroscience, endocrinology etc.
No references to 'surveys' particularly no online, self-selected surveys in support, nor popular psychology, news articles, output by lobby groups, or pseudo-science articles, thank you.

Yours faithfully,
Elspeth V. Moray

FOI Enquiries, Nottingham Trent University

Dear Elspeth

Thank you for your email dated 226 September 2020 requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please accept our apologies for the delay in acknowledgement. The University is considering your request and will respond to you within the stipulated timescale under the legislation of 20 working days. If further clarification is required in relation to your request we will contact you shortly, otherwise you should hear further from us on or before 23 October 2020.

Please be aware that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and following Government advice, the University has moved to online teaching and staff are working remotely, this may mean that access to some information held locally or on certain systems may not be readily available at this time.

Where it becomes clear that the information you have requested is not available due to the current situation, we will of course write to you and advise you of this.

In the meantime, if you have any queries please contact [Nottingham Trent University request email].

Kind regards,
Lindsey

Lindsey Peggs
Information Governance Administrator
Nottingham Trent University
E-mail: [Nottingham Trent University request email]

show quoted sections

2nd October, 2020 to NTU.
Dear Ms Peggs,
Thank you for your acknowledgement. I look forward to a full response in the short term.
Yours sincerely,
Elspeth V. Moray

FOI Enquiries, Nottingham Trent University

2 Attachments

Dear Elspeth

Further to your request under the Freedom of Information Act, please see attached the University’s response.

Kind regards

Chloe Arbon
Information Governance Administrator

Nottingham Trent University
E-mail: [Nottingham Trent University request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Nottingham Trent University,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Nottingham Trent University's handling of my FOI request 'NTU Gender Recognitions Act (GRA) Reform Consultation Analysis: Communications & Who wrote summary & overviews as it was not the analysis team etc.'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/n...

This was a public funded project, I am a member of the public and our taxes paid for this work. The work is complete with the final deliverable, the analysis document, published. Accountability and transparency are fundamental. NTU has the information requested.

A normal expectation of a professionally managed project, particularly contracted outsourced work, is that all documentation and pertinently all correspondence and communications are filed for reference; catalogued, stored and archived. The technology is easily available and storage comparatively inexpensive. It would be most unusual given that you are a) a university, b) it was a government contract, and c) given the tasks to be performed for the analysis, if paper based systems were used for record keeping or that filing was not performed to a reasonable standard.

I believed this to have been designated an independent analysis, please clarify where and how it was not. This is relevant to my questions on who developed the overviews, the prose interpretations and synopses of the analysis; as the Project Lead stated it was not the project team.

I now also ask for a copy of the contract (if you indeed have proprietary items of significance they may be redacted). Costs need not be as the GEO/Cabinet Office must publish them as they spend public monies. The work is done.

NTU Refusal:
(1)
The Act gives rights of public access to information held by public authorities. These rights only apply to information held, and does not confer any explicit right to copies of original documents. Whilst a request for documents (emails, minutes, records etc.) is deemed to be a valid request for information recorded within that document, most documents will contain recorded information over and above the actual wording (such as information not applicable to the request).

NTU has the information. It will no doubt be stored digitally. The information requested was communications, correspondence, emails; they make up the ‘information’ though they may be called documents, files, notes or logs. And yes, scans, copies are the expectation - of the originals.

NTU agree it is a valid request.

I question why a document would contain ‘information’ not related to the contract, the analysis work, and the project. I have no idea what is meant by this statement by NTU.
My interest is what is being communicated – the wording, the content – please clarify your refusal based on there being ‘more than the wording’. I assume there will be logos, headers but there is no relevant data issue I can imagine.

I truly have no interest in extraneous ‘stuff’ whatever this may be, and see no good reason for this obscurantism. Please provide what was requested or explain fully and logically, with examples, what you mean by the above.

Therefore, the University must consider the release of information within any identified correspondence. As your request is extremely wide and asks for all communications in all mediums, the University is unable to provide any information within the Fees Limit (Section 12). The University would be required to review all correspondence and documentation relating to the project - therefore, provision of the information would take the University over the Fees Limit. In addition to the Fees Limit exemption above,

As covered above the information will be digitised in an accessible format organised and easily downloadable and sent as attachments. I requested all correspondence/communications so -- the whole project correspondence/communications/logs file(s). This cannot be difficult or time consuming.

This was a short project unless you can give some sense of scale (counts and gig) and explanation for this description of the request being ‘extremely wide’, and why ‘all’ needs review (and give a reasonable and comprehensible justification), and of your man hour costs; basically what is so difficult* that it would take more than 4 hours maximum and yet you state it will take more than 18 and £450? -- this refusal is invalid.

Note: Transparency is important, vital, and I see no justification for redaction or censorship or insinuations of a need to manipulate.

the University has considered documentation/correspondence/emails any other medium of documentation to be exempt by virtue of Section 41 – Confidentiality; Section 43(2) – Commercial Interests; and Section 40(2) – Personal Data.

As stated above this was a contract paid for with public funds, our taxes. NTU has NOT stated there were requirements from Government for staff to sign long term confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements, more pertinently NDAs applicable past project completion which in itself is unusual and important information, nor have you stated what is and what is not copyright (why would be another question).

The data was from a public consultation and completely anonymised before being sent to NTU.

I did not ask for individual responses or indeed response data.

I have NOT requested the data files, or the lower level data and analysis results files, but simply all correspondence and communications between NTU and the UK government. (i.e. no personal response data).

I see no confidentiality issue.

(*) This could possibly relate to my other question -- who wrote the interpretations? If sections of the analysis went back and forth to the GEO for example. A simple statement to this effect would negate the requirement to send copies of the actual analysis results sections. However, any correspondence from the Government requesting modifications of the results would be included as particularly important in my request item (1).

Commercial Interests exemption, the project is completed, the analysis published. I have great difficulty understanding what possible commercial interests that NTU may have to keep secret. If you have proprietary software or technology or methods/models I have not asked for them, and this section of the contract or discussions in correspondence may be redacted. The costs of the final project are no longer commercially sensitive. You have not justified this exemption.

Personal Data I see no personal data issue, the consultation data was anonymised and not requested,

NTU staff are known.

FOI requests are to enable the public to have sight of the workings of government and institution, to see interactions and evidence; neither should be discussing or communicating in an unprofessional, dishonest or illegitimate manner. There should be no issue and no reason for secrecy.

I can see no reason why the project files would contain ‘personal data’ as I have not asked for the data records. So, again invalid.

(If your staff do not stand by their work and statements, and therefore want their involvement kept secret that is another issue entirely and must be raised with the Board of the University as to why they tender for contracts if staff have so little confidence in their abilities, analysis, conclusions inter alia.)

(2)
My request:
"We also did not write the executive summary, or the overviews of each question." (blog)
Please state who did: provide names, roles, and identify the employers of the people or people and government departments of those who did write the summary and overviews for each question.
Please all communications on this particular area are of particular interest (any and all forms).

NTU have stated the “Government Equalities Office wrote the executive summary” but have not answered who wrote the overviews, the prose interpretation, the analysis for each question.

This is a very important area that requires great clarity and precision.

Please answer my request in full and provide copies of original documentation between NTU and GEO on the ‘prose’, complete. This will at the very least, provide the name of your contact at GEO.

From your statement that you do not have the name of the person(s) responsible (“not held”) I assume you are stating that NTU had no communications with the writer of the summary whatsoever.

I find the possibility that NTU has no knowledge of who wrote the overviews and had no discussions on any question, quite unbelievable. But, do please make your position clear in response.

This is the information that is of primary import and overrides all other.

Please provide this information in full by return; it will fall well below the £450 limit.

(3)
Original request:
Please provide detailed information including names and qualifications for those who have "expertise in gender and trans (including non-binary) identities."

I did not ask for the names of all those involved in the project I specifically asked for the name and qualifications of this expert(s).

NTU concerns about their ‘emotive response’ to being named or the emotive responses of others, is neither here nor there.

NTU has made a statement, a substantial claim of academic expertise pertinent to the project, and must be able to identify the academic(s) with this specialisation, and what it consists of.

I do not see how one can be recognised as expert if no one knows who you are and there can be no verification and no challenge.

NTU has claimed a Health and Safety exemption “falls within this exemption where disclosure would or would likely endanger the physical or mental health or safety of any individual”.

I would strongly suggest that if NTU(s) experts are of such mental weakness that they cannot handle being identified they are most unsuited to any role at a University or on a project.

As to physical or other safety issues I am actually finding this one of the most absurd refusals I have ever read. Are you suggesting that naming your expert puts them in danger? From whom, and why? This truly must be evidenced.

There was no live animal research and no biological/nuclear or other activities – as a Biochemist I am aware of certain roles that require protections, But, in this case I cannot see any risks whatsoever (except losing an argument to another’s based on evidence). However, if the individual claims a Trans status which from your response I now suspect, do please assure them they are a very safe demographic in the UK, much safer than others and TGEU TDoR claims have no reality in the UK – but then as expert they would know this already. Baffling.

This is a request for review and if NTU want to uphold this exemption they seriously must provide receipts and evidence of the validity of these risks, some actual basis.

‘Advertised’ academics cannot be allowed to ‘hide’ behind a Health and Safety exemption, this is truly absurd.

(4)

NTU Refusal: requests for evidence etc. “rather contest notions and points of theory”

NO.

First, please note sexual reproduction, binary sex, and its immutability is not contested. Biology in humans is not a notion or theory but fact. We are a binary species who only reproduce sexually. There is a distinct and agreed name for the categories, small gametes sperm producers and large gametes ova producers; male and female, as adult humans - men and women. It is a binary. There is no third gamete, no third sex. These are incontrovertible facts. Biology is not contested in this area. If NTU staff contest any point it must be thoroughly supported with solid evidence from respected sources, reproducible; it will not be found. Good analyses require intellectual rigour.

However, NTU is correct; Gender ideology does indeed consist of contested “notions” and unsubstantiated theories, but specifically Queer Theory.

Good analysts prefer to distinguish facts and need clear precise terms. To weight ‘notions’ equally with facts, internet memes equally to empiricism, research supported claims, cut and paste equally to original work, and falsehoods equally with truths, is not analysis, it is arithmetic. I suspect some on the project knew this.

NTU was asked to define its terms and provide reputable research in support. As a University NTU must recognise analysts must use agreed definitions and terms most especially when their usage veers away from common usage and understanding; are being redefined or are novel.

However, if NTU did not write, and is not responsible for any of the prose, if NTU is not responsible for any interpretations and analysis, it is clearly the responsibility of the GEO and not NTU. Please confirm explicitly.

Otherwise on (4)

I ask for the dataset of Amnesty International commonalities, the phrases recognised as from the Amnesty Campaign, the search terms/strings in other words, used to identify and categorise an entry as influenced by Amnesty International. This links into something quite different but related that I am currently interested in and could prove informative and useful.

Thank you again for your attention, I hope this review will result in my receiving much of substance and restore NTU’s credibility.

Sincerely,
EVM
Elspeth V. Moray

Elspeth V. Moray left an annotation ()

Susannah (Sue) Fish is on the Board of Governors at NTU.
Previously Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police (until 2017). Upstander of the year National Hate Crime Awards 2017. Runs a consultancy Starfish. 8th October, 2020: with Stonewall, Stella Creasey, Sue Fish promoting misogyny as part of Hate Crime Law. Indeed.

FOI Enquiries, Nottingham Trent University

Dear Elspeth

I confirm receipt of your email dated 24 October 2020. Within your email you have requested an internal review following the University’s response to your request under the Freedom of Information Act dated 26 September 2020.

Your request for an internal review has been made under categories 'incorrect/erroneous application of an exemption' and 'incorrect/incomplete information provided' as set out in the University's internal review procedure..

Your request for an internal review has been passed to an investigator – Rebecca Jenkyn, Head of Governance and Legal Services ([email address]). If further information is required from you to assist in the internal review, you will hear from us shortly. The internal review process is normally completed within 20 working days from receipt of your request; therefore, you should hear from us on or before 20 November 2020.

Kind regards

Lindsey Peggs
Information Governance Administrator

Nottingham Trent University
E-mail: [Nottingham Trent University request email]

show quoted sections

FOI Enquiries, Nottingham Trent University

1 Attachment

Dear Elspeth

Further to your request for internal review received on 24 October 2020 , please see attached the response from Rebecca Jenkyn, Head of Governance and Legal Services.

Kind regards
Lindsey

Lindsey Peggs
Information Governance Administrator
Governance and Legal Services
E: [Nottingham Trent University request email]

show quoted sections

FOI Enquiries, Nottingham Trent University

3 Attachments

Dear Elspeth

Further to your request under the Freedom of Information Act, please see attached the University's response. Please accept our apologies for the delay in response.

Kind regards
Lindsey

Lindsey Peggs
Information Governance Administrator
Governance and Legal Services
E: [Nottingham Trent University request email]

show quoted sections