Request for Definitions of Terms GRA Reform Scotland Consultation

The request was refused by Scottish Government.

Dear Scottish Government,

With reference to the current Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill Consultation.

As a matter of some urgency I request the definitions of terms used in the documents and draft bill, they have not been supplied.

Including but not limited to sex, gender, "a person's gender", "aquired gender", "living in aquired gender".

Clear, logical, non circular definitions and explanation of the meaning of terms, and examples.

Yours faithfully,

D. Cooke

Scottish Government

Our Reference: 202000015418
Your Reference: request-644735-25b772b2

Dear D. Cooke,

Thank you for your correspondence sent on 08/02/2020. Your query will be
passed to the relevant area for consideration and has been given a
reference number of 202000015418. Please quote this number in all
correspondence. The Scottish Government aim to respond, where necessary,
as quickly as possible and within the stated timescale as indicated on our
website
(http://www.gov.scot/about/contact-inform...).

Yours sincerely
MiCase
Correspondence system for SG and partner agencies

The Scottish Government takes your privacy seriously. You may have written
to us because you have a question or want to make a complaint. Our privacy
notice
(https://beta.gov.scot/publications/conta...),
available on our website, sets out how we use your personal data, and your
rights when communicating with us. It is made under Article 13 of the
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
********************************************************************** 
This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is
intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is
not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the
email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender
immediately by return.
Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded
in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other
lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may
not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.
**********************************************************************
 

Dear Scottish Government,
Ref: FOI 2020 000 1548 08/02/2020
FAO: Leslie Evans Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government
04/03/2020

I urgently requested a complete Definitions of Terms covering all terms used in the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill public consultation. The consultation closes on 17th March and they still have not been provided.

Do provide links to sources but clearly this is not a priority at this time, and members of the public should not have to search links or assume or guess what is meant.

A complete set of definitions is the highest priority and I ask that they are provided by return.

Thank you for your immediate attention.

Yours faithfully,
Cooke

Scottish Government

1 Attachment

Please find attached a response to your correspondence.
********************************************************************** 
This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is
intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is
not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the
email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender
immediately by return.
Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded
in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other
lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may
not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.
**********************************************************************
 

Scottish Government

Dear D Cooke

We have received and noted your message below.

I understand that before we were able to take action on your message our
case handler had completed and sent our response to your request and that
this was done within the timescale allowed for Freedom of Information
requests.

Our response contained details of how you can proceed if you are not
satisfied with it.

Please contact me if you wish us to treat your message from 4/3/2020 as a
new request.

 

Kind regards

 

M Bruce

 

show quoted sections

Dear Scottish Government,
Yes, I have recieved a response, today, thank you. However, I would request it is raised for internal review, and also please lodge a formal complaint.

Formal complaint.
6th March, 2020.
The Public Consultation, Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was opened December, 2019 with a very minimal Glossary and no Definitions of Terms. This is below minimal expected standards for a public consultation and for a bill, especially in this case where multiple terms and phrases are used, that have no evidentiary support/accepted meaning/explanations or examples. Law requires clarity, precision. Indeed several words used, meanings, and phrases are disputed. Sex is factually based, gender is contentious. After several weeks I at last received a response last night, after reiterating that my request had been urgent (as the consultation closes 17th March) .
The response refers me to other sources, this is not acceptable. The definitions you intend for this bill and its contents should have been documented in the consultation itself, a complete set of definitions with examples, all in one place, without the need for searches or assumptions. You cannot refer to the definitions of a panel you intend to dispose of, for just one example. This is not good enough, this is a major disservice to the Scottish public. This is a severe error, a major failure on the part of our civil service.

Please process as appropriate, thank you.
Yours faithfully,

Cooke

Scottish Government

Dear D Cooke

We have noted your complaint and have passed this to the appropriate team who will respond in due course.

Regarding your request for a review of our Freedom of Information response, it would be valuable for us to know whether you are dissatisfied with the information content of the response or the manner in which it was presented, by reference to another source?

Yours sincerely

M Bruce

Michael Bruce |FOI Adviser | Freedom of Information Unit | Scottish Government | 2W, St Andrew’s House | Regent Road | Edinburgh | EH1 3DG | ( 0131 244 3457 (Ext) 43457

show quoted sections

Scottish Government

Our Reference: 202000020111
Your Reference: Gender recognition consultation

Dear D Cooke,

Thank you for your correspondence sent on 11/03/2020. Your query will be
passed to the relevant area for consideration and has been given a
reference number of 202000020111. Please quote this number in all
correspondence. The Scottish Government aim to respond, where necessary,
as quickly as possible and within the stated timescale as indicated on our
website
(http://www.gov.scot/about/contact-inform...).

Yours sincerely
MiCase
Correspondence system for SG and partner agencies

The Scottish Government takes your privacy seriously. You may have written
to us because you have a question or want to make a complaint. Our privacy
notice
(https://beta.gov.scot/publications/conta...),
available on our website, sets out how we use your personal data, and your
rights when communicating with us. It is made under Article 13 of the
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
********************************************************************** 
This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is
intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is
not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the
email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender
immediately by return.
Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded
in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other
lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may
not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.
**********************************************************************
 

Dear Scottish Government,

I believe my original request, and the content of my request for internal review and the formal complaint were very clear.

A consultation on a draft bill was published in December and closes in a couple of days.

The consultation did not define the terms, explain or give examples. Law requires precise definitions, clear meanings.

After weeks scotgov still did not deliver a document defining all the terms used, in one place for reference, a document with full coverage, clearly stating the intended meanings for the new bill.

This should not have to be explained or repeated.

This is a severe error on the part of the Scottish Government: they were not defined in the documentation, or draft bill, and apparently you have been unable or unwilling to deliver.

We are all perfectly aware of the variations extant in definitions and meanings in the area of SOGIESC currently, and assumptions are not a sound basis on which to review a proposed law.

Scotgov should have been able to state what they meant in this instance, in one delivery, complete, independent, as a whole, - - but could not, did not.

The conclusions are obvious.

Yours faithfully,

Cooke

Dear Scottish Government,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Scottish Government's handling of my FOI request 'Request for Definitions of Terms GRA Reform Scotland Consultation'.

As documented here at whatdotheyknow.

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

Yours faithfully,

Cooke

Scottish Government

1 Attachment

Dear D Cooke

 

I attach a reply to your complaint.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

SIMON STOCKWELL

 

show quoted sections

Scottish Government

1 Attachment

Please find attached a response to your correspondence.
********************************************************************** 
This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is
intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is
not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the
email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender
immediately by return.
Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded
in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other
lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may
not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.
**********************************************************************
 

Dear Scottish Government,
FAO: Simon Stockwell

Dear Mr Stockwell,

Thank you for your response of 29th March, 2020. Apologies for a delayed response due to illness.

Please raise this to Stage 2 immediately.

It is unacceptable to state that a public consultation does not require definitions of terms and full explanations of phrases used, and that they will be provided later 'when the bill goes to parliament'.

The Scottish Government must be able to state clearly, precisely and rationally what it means, it did not do so. It has not done so.

If definitions and explanations are not, and cannot be provided for a public consultation it surely highlights that those involved in reality do not know what they are talking about. This formed no credible foundation for consultation. This is an unsound basis for law, any law.

Policy must be evidence based on sound credible empirical data without bias, the consultation failed completely in this area.

Words have meaning and my government must not be allowed to continue to obscure and 'redefine' terms, especially not terms that have dictionary definitions matching common usage and current (near absolute) scientific fact. Only with transparency can the flaws in your logic be discussed.

Sex is meaningful, binary and immutable in humans. This cannot be refuted. Facts. Truth.

This attempt by the Scottish Government to comply with the unsound SOGIESC agenda makes no logical sense, it is irrational. I believe it is destabilusing, destructive, and likely dangerous.

The Scottish Government has failed the public and continues to fail in its duty to the public with this lack of clarity, indeed this obfuscation.

This poor attempt and inadequate reasoning to validate policy, indeed to promulgate what can only be seen as an ideology, must be rejected.

The low standards and poor quality of evidence throughout this consultation must be rejected.

Yours faithfully,

Cooke

Dear Mr Stockwell,

On 25th April my request to raise the complaint to Stage 2.

When can I expect a full meaningful response from my government? I have had no confirmation.

I also note that a Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill has overlaps with GRA proposed reforms, and strongly appears to have the same deficits of definition and clarity in the area of sex and genderism and VSC.

I have also failed to get a complete set of logical, rational definitions of terms in this area from NRS. There are also conflicts with EA and EHRC definitions and material realities. Please see other FOI requests on this site.

These matters, these failures, this lack of sound shared definitions and meanings, inter alia, in and between Scottish institutions and other institutions in the UK, are of serious concern to the people of Scotland, and of the UK. The fundamental science denialism at root is profundly misguided.

Yours faithfully,

Cooke

Scottish Government

Dear D Cooke

Thank you for your email below.

Just to say that we have your Stage 2 complaint and the Scottish Government will reply as soon as we can.

Yours sincerely

SIMON STOCKWELL

 
 

show quoted sections

Scottish Government

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Cooke

Please find attached correspondence form the Scottish Government.

Kind regards,

Joanne Kerr (she/her)
Scottish Government Complaints
Public Engagement Unit | Room 1E.10 | St Andrew's House | Edinburgh EH1 3DGE
E: [email address]

I am currently working from home due to the Covid-19 restrictions.

show quoted sections

Dear Scottish Government,
I have raised this with SPSO.
I am direly disappointed with the Scottish Government.
Yours faithfully,
D. Cooke

Cooke left an annotation ()

Well, I went to the Ombudsman and they are not taking the complaint forward as they think this 'reasonable as definitions will be provided later'.
I have anonymised the response and posting as I think people deserve to be aware that 'not being able to define terms until bill goes to Parliament' is acceptable in Scotland. I really think others should be raising this as law is meant to be precise and all terms defined clearly and I sincerely believe this should be true when the public is consulted on proposals. (They are not defining terms based on material fact and logic. This is the problem, irrational and dangerous.)

Complaint about Scottish Government (the Government)
Thank you for sending us details of your complaint. This is clearly an extremely important issue for you and I appreciate you are very concerned about the consultation process given the potential consequences for the protection of women and girls as a sex class in the future.
My role has been to carry out an early assessment of the information you have provided to
establish whether your complaint is one this office would take forward. As I have explained
below, my view is that your complaint is not one we can take forward on the basis of the
information you provided.
I have reached this view on the basis of the information available to date and with the guidance of my colleague XXXXXXXXXXXX.(deleted).
Your complaint
You were unhappy that the Government had refused to properly define the terms or give
examples of relevant words/phrases in the public consultation on the draft version of the
Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill which started in December 2019. This was the
proposed legislation to replace/update the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004 but you said
the Government failed to meet the minimal accepted standards for starting a public
consultation and bill process. You added this was particularly concerning when the
Government’s definition of terms such as sex, gender, woman, and living as changed from one source to the next.
You said the Government took weeks to respond to you and they then claimed this delay was due to COVID-19 despite you contacting them before the pandemic started. You said it was not acceptable for their response to direct you towards other sources as the consultation should have included a full list of definitions to begin with. You said the Government should not have proceeded if they were unable to properly explain what they meant. You said this had been a frustrating process and you had lost faith in the Government as a result.
Why your complaint is not being taken further
Our role at this stage is to assess whether or not the organisation has taken appropriate steps to address the issues that you have raised. I must first make it clear that I will only be
considering the response to your formal complaint dated 6 March 2020. You provided
information about the Freedom of Information (FOI) request you made and the review that was subsequently carried out. (….Refers me to SIC).
The Government issued their initial response to your complaint on 29 March 2020. They said
you asked for a number of terms, including ‘sex’ and ‘gender’, to be defined but the draft Bill
did not propose to define the terms in question for the purposes of the amendments to the
GRA. They said that as a result they did not consider the consultation to be inadequate. The
Government noted they have to prepare a number of accompanying documents and impact
assessments when introducing a Bill into Parliament.
The Government said they also did not consider the consultation to be inadequate in relation
to the terms “the acquired gender” and “living in the acquired gender”. They said they felt the
consultation clearly outlined how the proposed new system for obtaining legal gender
recognition would work. The Government noted that a number of consultees had commented that greater clarity was needed in relation to the second term. They said they will consider when preparing a Bill for Parliament whether any of the accompanying documents and any of the impact assessments could say more on what the term “living in the acquired gender” means in practice.
The Government said they did not consider the consultation to be inadequate in reference to
the glossary and definitions of terms. They said the glossary covered key terms and the
consultation also included draft explanatory notes for the Bill. They said they will consider when preparing a Bill for Parliament whether any of the accompanying documents, including the explanatory notes, and any of the impact assessments could include a more detailed
explanation of key terms.
You took your concerns to the second stage of the complaint process on 25 April 2020 and the Government issued their final response on 2 June 2020. They apologised for the delay and explained this was related to the COVID-19 pandemic. They said the proposals put forward in the consultation were for a Bill and any Bill would define the terms in line with their policy intentions. The Government noted they therefore did not consider they had any requirement or obligation to define the terms in the way you suggested.
The Government said the consultation clearly outlined the proposed changes to the system for obtaining legal gender recognition. They noted that under these proposals a person could
obtain legal gender recognition by making a statutory declaration and then applying to the
Registrar General rather than applying to the UK Gender Recognition Panel with medical
evidence. The Government concluded they felt there was sufficient information in the
consultation for consultees to support or oppose the proposals and offer comments on them
so they did not consider the consultation inadequate.
The Government noted you suggested some terms could have been better explained and there could have a better glossary. They said there was currently no work being carried out on the proposed Bill due to the COVID-19 pandemic but they would take your points on board if they proceeded with legislation in this area. The Government said the explanatory material for any future Bill could explain the terms you mentioned and include a full glossary. They noted this would be helpful for the Parliament, those seeking to submit evidence, and the public. The Government concluded they were content they had provided the necessary information to respond to the matters you raised.
I appreciate you remain very unhappy and I have considered very carefully what we could do
to help further. The law gives us discretion to decide whether we should investigate when a
complaint comes to us. To help us decide whether investigation is appropriate, we look at the complaint investigation carried out by the organisation complained about. If the organisation’s response appears reasonable and suggests that a good complaints investigation has taken place, we would only normally investigate where the complainant has provided clear reasons for us to doubt the organisation’s position.
On the basis of the evidence I have seen, I consider the Government’s response to your
complaint to appear reasonable. They explained that the final Bill would define the terms you
referred to and their view was they were not obligated to fully define them in the consultation
for the Bill. The Government also said they were satisfied the consultation gave enough
information to allow those who wished to consult to form a view on the proposals. They
confirmed they will take the points you have made into account if and when the final Bill is
being prepared to go before the Scottish Parliament.
I appreciate you disagree with the Government’s response and you remain unhappy.
However I do not consider your disagreement casts doubt on the accuracy of their response or confirms they have failed to do what they are required to do for the consultation process. I should also add that in any case it is unlikely this office would have the power to tell the Government what terms should be used and how within a consultation for a proposed Bill for the Scottish Parliament. You could consider contacting your MSP to ensue your political representative is aware of your concerns about the Bill.
In coming to this conclusion I would not want you to think your complaint is not important. I
want to be absolutely clear that this office recognises that this is an extremely important issue and the changes being proposed will have a lasting effect for many years to come. I have simply concluded that the limits on what our office can achieve and the response provided by the Government means there would be nothing more this office could achieve for you by investigating further.

Given the above, I have no reason to doubt the Government’s position which continues to
appear reasonable.

It is therefore my view that it would not be appropriate for this office to
investigate further. I appreciate you are likely to be disappointed that your complaint is not one we will take forward. However, I hope I have been able to clearly explain the reasons for our position on this matter. I have closed our file on your complaint and, in line with our procedures, sent a copy of this letter to the Government for their information. If you have any questions about this letter please feel free to contact me.