Source · Select Committees · Women and Equalities Committee
Recommendation 6
6
Paragraph: 73
Ministers are fundamentally accountable to Parliament and have a duty to make themselves available for...
Conclusion
Ministers are fundamentally accountable to Parliament and have a duty to make themselves available for scrutiny by the House and its committees. The same applies, with certain qualifications, to other public servants and public officeholders. We are deeply disappointed by the approach taken by both the Government Equalities Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission to this inquiry. We understand that the subject of Gender Recognition Act reform is controversial, contested and difficult. That does not mean that key bodies should shy away from engaging with the challenges it presents, or from connecting with stakeholders who hold views on the matter. Indeed, it makes it even more important that we should do so. The refusal of Government Equalities Office Ministers to attend our evidence session and properly engage with our inquiry is inexcusable. We appreciate that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has a core function as an enforcer. It also, however, has a responsibility to provide information, influence policy and be a catalyst for change. In our view, the Commission has neglected to adequately fulfil these functions in relation to Gender Recognition Act reform. It is a matter of deep regret that the Government and its public bodies have chosen to evade Parliamentary scrutiny on this contentious subject.
Paragraph Reference:
73
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
7. We reject the claim that the fee reduction was ‘tokenistic’. In the National LGBT Survey, 34% of transgender respondents told us that the cost of applying for a certificate was holding them back from doing so. The 2018 consultation also found that 58% of respondents were in favour of removing the £140 fee. We reduced the fee to £5 rather than removing the fee entirely as the latter would have required primary legislation and taken more time. Instead we were able to quickly reduce the fee through secondary legislation, less than a year after our response was published, making the application process far more affordable.