���˿���

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 If the overseas gender recognition has been revoked, for whatever reason, an application for revocation of the confirmatory GRC could be made.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.

Yes, and we monitor that carefully. As you will be aware, the housing system for Ukrainian displaced persons is a bit separate. They have the welcome accommodation and then we try to get them into host accommodation. There are also opportunities for accommodation in the private rented sector and the social rented sector.

A lot of work is going on, and £50 million has been made available to local authorities to provide new accommodation in refurbished and repurposed properties. We have had a good response from a number of local authorities. The latest is 500 units in Aberdeen that needed refurbishment and had been seen as surplus to requirement. We are trying to keep that housing stream a bit separate to create additional capacity, but we need to keep a close eye on it.

It is really important that the opportunity for host accommodation is continued beyond six months. There have been a number of changes in who is in charge of the programme in the United Kingdom Government. My colleague Neil Gray has sought urgent discussions about the importance of ensuring that we are able to keep hosts beyond the six-month point. English local authorities are really concerned about the matter as well. We do not want people to end up coming out of host accommodation and presenting as homeless. It is really important that that does not happen, so it is crucial that hosts can continue to host while people are supported into more settled accommodation.

All of those things are linked.

I welcome the supporting statement that Shelter has shared with the committee, which recognises that the change is an important step towards improving outcomes for homeless households and giving them the same ability to move as any other household would have. Shelter advocates on behalf of people who are experiencing homelessness. I know that it sees the change as a strong step in the right direction towards supporting a person’s right to choose where they live. It has held that position for quite some time and is content that the Scottish Government has now introduced such a change, having previously delayed—although that was for good reasons, because of Covid and then the situation in Ukraine. We feel that now is the right time to move forward and that to delay any further would not be right.

I am happy to do so. In my opening statement, I said that about 5 per cent of households do not have a connection to the local authority that they present to. There were fewer than 200 referrals last year, and 11 councils made no referrals and 13 councils made five or fewer, so we are not talking about huge numbers of people or huge increases.

However, we recognise that we must monitor, observe and keep an eye on any trends. We completed an island communities impact assessment with engagement from each of the six island and rural local authorities to ensure that we were hearing about the issues that Emma Roddick has articulated. The monitoring and reporting framework has been developed in collaboration with them and with front-line services and people with lived experience, to capture relevant information to support the data that had already been gathered through the HL1 homelessness statistics. Monitoring those statistics will be an important way of understanding the impact of the legislation. We have said that, if there should be any indications of difficulty, we will engage directly with the relevant local authority to consider how we can support it.

The backstop would be if an emergency situation were to be created in an area. There would then be the potential to come forward with an exemption, which would require me to come back to Parliament, though I would want to do so only in extremis. I do not anticipate that that will need to be done, because I think that local authorities will manage the situation and that, with our support, they will be able to address any additional applications that come in.

I will be happy to come back to the committee with an update report after a period of implementation, if it would be helpful to give you further information at that point.

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.

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.

Again, I will bring in officials on the detail. Some of the data is already being collected, and the monitoring and evaluation framework is about adding information to what is already there.