(this is a continuation of the previous part, and the first part)

Previously I received the result of how my request was handled, which was, in summary, only blacked-out text. I have now received the final response, which ends this adventure with the UK Cabinet Office.

When I received the blacked-out text about how my FOI request was handled I requested an internal review, because I thought it was a bit silly. Of course this response was delayed as well, as were all previous ones:

That was not really surprising. It was annoying, but at this point quite expected. I did not expect them to change their opinion anyway, this was just so I could lodge a complaint at the ICO in the future. My expectation was not incorrect, as the response later came:

In the meantime I contacted the ICO regarding the original request - I was wondering how long it would take. They came back to me saying they would have an answer around January. In practice it took a bit longer though, but I decided I would wait with appealing the other FOI request until I had this answer. It came in February:

The short version is that the ICO considers that section 36 was correctly applied by the Cabinet Office and that publication would not be in the public interest. I was surprised by this outcome - I would have expected at least some information to be publishable, but I am not going to appeal this result at tribunal.

Sadly that means we will never know exactly what went down before the current version was published, which, given that there is a real chance Kemi Badenoch will become the next prime minister, her approach to this would have been interesting to learn. However, there is something we did learn:

Found no evidence that the Cabinet Office held information under parts 3 & 4 of the request

Which, if you recall, was regarding the sources they used regarding “being wrongly suggested that people have a legal right to access single-sex spaces and services according to their self-identified gender is a problem” and “adverse effects of access to single-sex spaces by individuals where their self-identified gender does not match their sex”.

Based on the information I now have, I can only conclude that there was no factual basis for the call-for-input. The Cabinet Office may happily prove me wrong by releasing the documents I asked for, but this is the only logical conclusion I can draw from the little information I have.

Back then, she said to The Standard “with cases where organisations believe they are required to allow access to such services to self-identifying transgender people”:

Single-sex spaces are essential for ensuring privacy and dignity for women. I do recognise, however, that the law in this area is complex, and I know that some organisations are confused and afraid of backlash if they are seen to get it wrong.

I can only conclude that this knowledge never made it into the department as those sources were never found. Either that or these organisations don’t exist and it wasn’t a true story, but I find that unlikely as politicians don’t lie.

It is tempting to speculate why they might have done it, but I do not believe I can provide a conclusive answer without those documents. Let’s assume they did it with the best of their intentions, and not to make a political point or to distract from other issues, right?