We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Ro Cochran please sign in and let everyone know.

Stonewall: Good Governance Disclosure

Ro Cochran made this Freedom of Information request to Stabilisation Unit as part of a batch sent to 44 authorities

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

We're waiting for Ro Cochran to read recent responses and update the status.

Dear Stabilisation Unit,

RE: Stonewall WEI: research into Private Voluntary Regulation and the SDG.

This is a request under the FOI Act.

Throughout 2021, many public bodies have released info on their Stonewall Workplace Equality Index applications, and feedback from the charity Stonewall. Some replies seem to be long overdue.

In July 2021, Stonewall released a statement stating that "the number of organisations who are part of the [Diversity Champions] programme has grown by 30 in total in the year to 1 June 2021".

This growth in numbers is despite numerous public bodies publishing their WEI applications and feedback, including full disclosures from the Scottish and the Welsh Government's. So, this clearly indicates that there is no threat to Stonewall's commercial interest from transparency by public bodies.

In 2017, Judge Ranzoni pointed out, in his dissenting opinion on an ECHR case, on coercive sterilisation as a pre-condition of legal gender recognition,: “In this regard the judgment highlights the existence of a “trend” towards the abolition of this requirement [sterilization]. I acknowledge that there exists a certain trend in Europe, but it is, as demonstrated above, only recent. Is this sufficient justification for narrowing considerably the margin of appreciation, which is in principle a wide one? I doubt it. Societies are moving only gradually towards abolishing sterilisation as a prerequisite for legal recognition of the gender identity of transgender persons.”

Yet, across the Council of Europe, 22 countries continue to enforce a sterilisation requirement.

This is despite the landmark 2017 opinion, Garcon and Nicot v France, when the Court held that, by conditioning gender recognition on submission to ‘a sterilisation operation or medical treatment creating a high probability of sterilisation’, France had violated the applicants’ right to private life under Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

That context is worth repeating: It was only in 2017 that more than twenty member states of the Council of Europe were obliged to reform their legislation with regard to legal gender recognition, in order to remove the compulsory condition of sterility.

Ranzoni said that there was “an absence of consensus among the member States on this specific aspect”.

He stated that, to the extent that gender recognition rules might obstruct or destabilise a coherent family law system, there would be a compelling justification for circumscribing, or appropriately limiting, those rules. For example, after a huge national debate, the Swedish Parliament passed a law abolishing the sterilisation requirement with effect from 1 July 2013.

On 6 November 2015, a bill to allow transgender people to legally change their gender without the need for sex reassignment surgery and forced sterilisation was approved by the French Senate.

In light of these developments, would you please release:

- Any dates of submissions made to, and any feedback received from, the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index in the three most recent years.

- The complete dates of your membership of any Stonewall schemes, and if you intend to continue membership in the future.

- If your submission was evaluated anonymously by Stonewall, or any communications that indicate otherwise.

Yours faithfully,

Rosie Cochran

Information Rights (Sensitive), Stabilisation Unit

“If you are making a request under the Freedom of Information Act,
Environmental Information Regulations or Data Protection Act, please note
that, in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, there may be delays in our
ability to respond to your email. We thank you for your patience at this
difficult time”

Follow us online: www.gov.uk/fcdo

This email is intended for the addressee(s) only: All messages sent and
received by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office may be
monitored in line with relevant [1]UK legislation

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

Information Rights Unit,

Dear Ms Cochran

Thank you for your FOI request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

We received your request on 17th September. It has been assigned a unique
reference number (above). We aim to respond by 15th October.

Please note, however, that reprioritisation of resources due to the
COVID-19 crisis, and measures we are required to take to prevent the
spread of the virus, continue to have an impact on our ability to respond
to all requests within the statutory deadline.

We have significantly reduced on-site working which will mean delays to
responses which require access to paper records.

We are endeavouring to process requests as quickly as possible, and
appreciate your patience at this time.

Yours sincerely,

Information Rights Unit

Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

Information Rights Unit,

Our ref: FOI2021/24314

Dear Ms Cochran,

I am writing with regards to your request for information which we are
currently processing for you.

I note your request was addressed to 'Stabilisation Unit' and I just
wanted to check if you seek information covering the Foreign Commonwealth
& Development Office (FCDO), or just information held by the Stabilisation
Unit?

I would be grateful if you could confirm and we will finalise processing
your request for you.

Yours sincerely,

Information Rights Unit

Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Ro Cochran please sign in and let everyone know.