Chamber and committees

As the name of the group suggests, the amendments in this group are of a minor and technical nature. Amendments 53, 64, 65, 69, 70, 78 and 82 have been lodged at the suggestion of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. The bill refers in a number of places to the role of the sheriff, either in giving notice that a certificate has been issued or in giving copies of such certificates to the registrar general. Although that is technically competent, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has suggested that for the sake of clarity those references should instead be to the sheriff clerk as, in practice, it would be the sheriff clerk who would carry out that function.

Amendment 79 relates to a consequential amendment to the 2004 act, which was inadvertently omitted from the bill as introduced. This amendment repeals subsection (1C) of the 2004 act, which provides that, where a full GRC is issued by the gender recognition panel to a person who is a party to a civil partnership or

“a marriage under the law of Northern Ireland ... the Secretary of State must send a copy of the certificate to the Registrar General for Northern Ireland.”

The bill already repeals a similar provision in relation to England and Wales, and amendment 79 does so for Northern Ireland as well.

I move amendment 53.

First, let me say that Sarah Boyack’s amendment is not really about reporting; it is about the appropriate support and information that would be made available to people. We have to be clear about what that is, who provides it and what it is for. If it is about the process, that will already be provided for. The additional safeguards in Christine Grahame’s amendment lay out the process for 16 and 17-year-olds, so that is all there.

On Rachael Hamilton’s final point, I have spent a lot of time in meetings with members from across the Parliament, including her and others from the Conservative Party, Pam Duncan-Glancy, Sarah Boyack and other Labour members.

It would be in guidance.

I would be pleased to have further discussions with Sarah Boyack. For the avoidance of doubt, we want to avoid listing organisations that we deem to be appropriate to provide support. I do not think that that would be a wise thing for the Scottish ministers to do.

With that caveat in place, if Sarah Boyack is happy to have further discussions, I am happy to have such discussions.

The first 10 amendments in the group seek to make a change in the bill as introduced. The bill currently requires the registrar general to grant an application for a gender recognition certificate if the applicant meets the requirements in the bill. That means that if the registrar general considers that an application was fraudulent or that the applicant was not able to understand the process, they would, if the applicant otherwise met the requirements, first have to issue the certificate and then apply to the sheriff for the certificate to be revoked.

To avoid that situation, those 10 amendments would allow the registrar general to apply to the sheriff before a certificate is issued. That is much more appropriate than having the registrar general issue the certificate first and then apply to the sheriff for it to be revoked. The court would then determine whether the application should be rejected or should proceed.

Amendment 67 adds to the grounds on which a person with an interest can apply for revocation of a GRC, specifically in the case of a confirmatory GRC, if the overseas gender recognition that was the basis for it has subsequently “ceased to have effect”. If the overseas gender recognition has been revoked, for whatever reason, an application for revocation of the confirmatory GRC could be made. That provision is unlikely to be used frequently but, given that overseas gender recognition is the basis for a confirmatory GRC, it is reasonable to provide for that eventuality.

Amendment 68 provides clarity that the standard of proof for an application to a sheriff is that, on the balance of probabilities, the GRC application was fraudulent. That is consistent with the usual standard of proof in a civil case, rather than the criminal standard of something being beyond reasonable doubt. That is appropriate, given that, in this case, the sheriff’s decision is on whether the GRC should be revoked, not on whether something is a criminal offence.

I move amendment 47.

Amendment 47 agreed to.

Amendment 124 not moved.

The change team that sits around the table at the homelessness strategic group that I attend has been absolutely fantastic at ensuring that all measures and developments in homelessness policies, services and legislation are checked against the views of people with lived experience. The team has drawn together a huge number of people with varied experience of accessing homelessness services, and their input is absolutely critical to ensuring that changes that are made or issues that we need to address further are identified and highlighted. If the committee has not done so already, I encourage it to engage with the change team, which is an amazing group of people.

I will go back to the numbers, which are relatively small. The latest figures that we have, for 2021-22, show that Edinburgh made 10 referrals and that Glasgow made 20. I am not minimising the issue, but we need to see it in the context of the overall number of applications.

I am obviously aware that there are pressures in Glasgow and Edinburgh. I have engaged very directly with the housing conveners of both cities, and we need to see the solutions as part of the wider housing system. Those systems are not the same in Glasgow and Edinburgh—they face different challenges. I have said to both housing conveners—I reiterated it in a letter that I issued yesterday—that I am keen to work with both of them and with those other local authorities that have, for example, the highest number of people in temporary accommodation to look at the solutions that they can bring forward, because they know their areas better than I do, and at how we can support them with those solutions. They can be ambitious in doing that, and I have offered to look favourably on solutions that can be brought forward with evidence of how they will impact the situation by resolving and reducing the number of people in temporary accommodation and by helping to reduce homelessness in both cities generally.

The monitoring framework will be important in monitoring any impact of the change on Glasgow, Edinburgh or anywhere else, and we will continue to engage with local authorities on that. However, I cannot stress enough how open I have been to their coming forward with solutions that they think can make a difference, and I look forward to engaging with them further on that.

At the time, we will look at what interventions have already been made and what further interventions a local authority believes are necessary. However, I go back to the wider discussion. We have already been up front with Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council that they should tell us what they think they need to do to tackle temporary accommodation issues. We can then have a conversation about how that is supported.

We would want local authorities that are in the situation that you describe to make full use of the allocations that they have already received. For example, the City of Edinburgh Council has not yet fully used its allocation for the affordable housing supply programme, and we want it to get on with that. I know that it has a few things in the pipeline, but we need the full allocation to be used before any further resources are used. However, I have said that, if the City of Edinburgh Council—or any other local authority with particular pressures on temporary accommodation—tells us what it thinks are the key things that it needs to do and that it can fund certain of them itself but that it needs a bit of assistance with others, I will look favourably on providing that if there is evidence that it will make a difference. Those are the conversations that we are having.

It is fair to say that there are mixed views in local authorities. Some have raised those concerns but others have not, so there is no consistent view across local authorities. Those who work in the homelessness sector and experts are clear that ending these referrals is the right thing to do. It is not the case that those local authorities that raised concerns said that we should not do it; the concerns were more about the timing. I listened to that when it came to dealing with Covid and Ukraine. That is why we delayed the legislation, perhaps to the frustration of some homelessness stakeholders. These matters are always about achieving a balance. It would not be right if, 20 years on from the issue having first been raised, we did not move forward on it. I have said that we will monitor any impact and that we will work with those individual local authorities to help them to overcome any issues.

As I said at the beginning of my comments, I have said clearly, particularly to Edinburgh and Glasgow councils, that my door is open and that I am keen to hear and receive proposals on how we can help them to move forward on some of the particular challenges that they face. That continues to be the case.

I will bring in my officials in a moment.

That obviously depends on their circumstances. Their homelessness application will be assessed on the basis their needs, as would any homelessness application.