Third report- Reform of the Gender Recognition Act

The government acknowledged the importance of engaging with the committee but did not address the specific criticism regarding the unacceptable delay in responding to its consultation or the failure to communicate progress during the delay. It highlighted that a response was eventually published and Ministers provided opportunities for scrutiny.

The government's response did not address the committee's deep disappointment regarding the GEO and EHRC's perceived evasion of parliamentary scrutiny and failure to engage with the inquiry. Instead, it focused on rejecting the claim that the GRC fee reduction was 'tokenistic' and explained its rationale.

The government's response defended the £5 fee reduction, arguing it was not 'tokenistic' and was implemented quickly via secondary legislation, leading to a significant increase in GRC applications. However, it did not directly address the committee's broader criticism that the overall consultation response was minimal or ignored areas of majority support for change.

The government's response discusses the digitisation of the GRC application process, which is unrelated to the committee's call for ministerial cooperation and compliance with accountability procedures.

The government's response details progress on digitising the GRC application process, which does not address the recommendation to remove the requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis.

The government's response commits to engaging fully with the Committee and building a constructive relationship, which does not address the recommendation to remove the spousal consent requirement for a Gender Recognition Certificate.

The government's response did not address the committee's conclusion agreeing that 18 is the appropriate age for legal gender recognition. Instead, it provided a generic statement acknowledging the importance of committee engagement and committing to a constructive relationship.

The government's response did not address the recommendation to amend Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act to cover only deliberate and knowing disclosures. Instead, it reiterated its view that the overall diagnosis requirements in the GRA are robust and appropriate.

The government's response states its view on the appropriateness of diagnosis requirements in the GRA, which does not address the recommendation to publish guidance on single-sex/separate-sex exceptions and trans/non-binary inclusive services.

The government reiterated its view that the position set out in September 2020 is appropriate and that GRA evidential requirements ensure a robust legal gender recognition process, but did not address the recommendation on updating language in acts and official documents.

The government reiterated its view that the position set out in September 2020 is appropriate and that GRA evidential requirements ensure a robust legal gender recognition process, but did not address the recommendation on developing data collection guidelines.

The government's response did not address the recommendation for DHSC and NHS England to attract more trainee doctors to specialise in gender identity healthcare. Instead, it discussed the necessity and retention of the statutory declaration requirement for GRC applications.

The government's response discusses the necessity of a statutory declaration for gender recognition and does not address the committee's concerns about the Government Equalities Office's work on transgender and non-binary primary healthcare.

The government's response defines the term 'spouse' and does not address the recommendation to develop a healthcare strategy for transgender and non-binary people.

The government's response defines the term 'spouse' and does not address the recommendation to commit to the LGBT Action Plan or reinstate the LGBT Advisory Panel.