ICO decision - may be of interest - Stonewall

[Xenia]

Stonewall and Oxford University

ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2022/4020822/ic-129040-y4t2.pdf

The complainant has requested copies of any submissions made to
Stonewall’s Workplace Equalities Index and any feedback received on
those submissions. The University of Oxford (“the University”) provided
its submissions, but relied on section 41 of FOIA (actionable breach of
confidence) to withhold the feedback.

1. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is not entitled to rely

on section 41 of FOIA to withhold the requested information.

1. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to

ensure compliance with the legislation. • Disclose, to the complainant, the information it has relied upon section 41 of FOIA to withhold.

-

"For example, in the University’s submission (which it has disclosed), one
area Stonewall seeks evidence on is the extent to which the University
has “utilised its social media accounts and online presence to
demonstrate its commitment to LGBT Equality.” On the face of it, this
seems like a fairly benign requirement but, when it is recognised that
Stonewall’s definition of “LGBT equality” is not one which is universally
accepted, the potential exists for such a provision to be misused.

Stonewall has recently clashed with women’s rights groups over the
recognition and rights of transgender people – therefore there would be
a public interest in knowing whether an organisation simply needs to
signal that it is welcoming of members of the LGBTQ+ community or
whether it needs to go further and denounce those whose views do not
mirror those of Stonewall. The Ofcom disclosure indicates that a public
authority can get itself confused between its functions – which are
supposed to be carried out neutrally and independently – and its desire
to score highly. That is not to say that Stonewall, through its schemes,
encourages such behaviour, but there is a public interest in
understanding how Stonewall would score such actions."

Very interesting - thank you! Especially those paragraphs you’ve highlighted (though the whole document is heartening).

The bit about lobbying is my favourite.

I think the information commissioner might have peaked.

Thanks for posting the link.

I particularly enjoyed para 48.

“The Commissioner agrees that his decision should be based on facts and not speculation. He notes that it appears to be a fact that Stonewall did not successfully bring a confidence action against the University [= when this withheld information was disclosed in previous years] and a fact that its Diversity Champions Programme does not appear to have suffered unduly from a previous disclosure. In contrast, the University’s submission is largely based on speculation about what Stonewall might or would be able to do in a hypothetical scenario.”

The explanation in square brackets / italics is mine. The rest is a quote from the ICO finding.

And another one - Johnny Best vs Huddersfield University.

static1.squarespace.com/static/5e2b6c0fd7eb2954ac4d1257/t/62ce96023d5bba789efbc6fc/1657705988003/IC-125081-Q8J6+signed+PDF+decision+notice.pdf

I haven’t read the whole thing properly and I think the judgement says some of what he asked for can be withheld, but when he linked on Twitter he said that the University now have 35 days to provide the information, so there must be some disclosure coming.

So pleased to see this. Jonny Best has been fantastic in pursuing this.

Those decisions are very interesting reading. Why are universities going out of their way to protect stonewall? Why are they taking so long to respond to FOI requests?

It will be interesting to see the results of the disclosures.

If the ICO are not actively protecting Stonewall (as this decision would suggest), might they also have something to say about other data issues like employers asking staff to put pronouns in email signatures
or surveys collecting gender or gender identity?