Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is no hiding the fact that it is a tough time for the construction sector and for SMEs, in particular. It is really difficult. Some of the larger organisations, developers and builders have resilience because of their size, but—to be blunt—SMEs do not always have that. All the factors that I talked about earlier really impact on SMEs. Ivan McKee has been doing important work with the construction sector on how we can support SMEs, by looking at local supply chains and how SMEs can get themselves into pole position to bid for work on contracts, whether as contractors or sub-contractors.

We also have to consider that one of the difficulties in the Highlands and Islands is to do with capacity to meet demand and that, sometimes, it is not possible for local SMEs to meet demand.

We will continue to work as a Government on how we can support our SMEs to take advantage of opportunities. The global factors and the cost base for SMEs are really challenging, but we will continue with that work.

Another important aspect that I should have mentioned in relation to the meetings that Ivan McKee and I have had with the construction sector is the sector’s concern about contracts and risk sharing. If costs go up, should they be met by the contractor alone or by the customer, that is, the housing association or local authority? I think that it has to be a shared risk. Clearly, as a Government, we do not get involved in contracts; that is for local partners to resolve. However, we met RSLs, councils and the construction sector to put out a message about flexibility. To ensure that contracts and projects continue to come in, there has to be a level of flexibility as we navigate through these challenging times. I think that that message has landed with both the construction sector and the customer—our RSLs and councils.

That issue with the feasibility stage has been raised on a number of occasions and is being addressed.

We expect the full plan to be published in spring next year. The work has some priority strands, about which I will be able to give an update prior to that—probably towards the end of the year. I will be happy to write to the convener with that information, if that would be helpful in advance of the full plan being published.

The first thing to reiterate—and you have probably heard me say this before—is that benchmarks are not grant rates or grant ceilings, and they should not have a role in shaping the expectations of grant funding levels for any particular project. Benchmarks are tools for determining the appraisal route for grant applications. As I said earlier, when we look at approvals, we see that half the projects are coming in at benchmark and half above the benchmark.

The current set of benchmarks will be adjusted to account for inflation using the differential in relation to the Scottish social housing tender price index for the year to December 2022, which is populated by data that has been received from RSL and council-approved projects. Alastair Dee might want to come in with further detail.

I noted that, at the tail end of his tenure, the previous Prime Minister announced the extension of the right to buy to the social rented sector—to housing associations. Obviously, we will have no truck whatever with that. We lost about 50,000 social rented homes when the right to buy council houses was introduced by the Thatcher Government, and it has taken us a long time to replace those homes. Through acquisitions and the ability of local authorities and RSLs to purchase off market, we are trying to regain some of that territory.

Therefore, opening up the right to buy is the very last thing that we would do, and we will resist any attempts by the UK Government to interfere in such matters. As far as I and the Scottish Government are concerned, housing is entirely devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and I do not think that there would be any appetite in the Parliament—I certainly hope that there would not be—to go down the right-to-buy route.

Do you mean the Scottish Government’s powers to borrow?

As you have said, there are various views on the matter. We have heard the views of stakeholders and respondents to the consultation who do not support the proposal, which might be for various reasons. Some will say, as you have said, that a person will have already reflected on the issue for their entire life. Some will say that the period of reflection is too short and others will say that it is not required if the applicant is required to live in their acquired gender for a longer period before applying. Again, I do not think that there is much consensus on the issue.

In our opinion, the reflection period represents a balanced and proportionate time before taking what is an important and life-changing decision. I think that it will provide additional assurance that applicants have considered carefully what they are doing in making a serious lifelong choice. The bill requires applicants not to reconfirm the facts and circumstances that are set out in their application but simply to affirm that they wish to proceed. Some countries—most notably Denmark and Belgium—have reflection periods, and others do not. As I have said, we will look at the committee’s recommendations, but it is important that we try, as far as we can, to strike a balance in respect of the range of concerns. The three-month reflection period could be helpful in ensuring that people are absolutely sure that it is what they want to do.

Prison is an issue that has been raised and the committee heard evidence from the Scottish Prison Service, which said that whether or not someone has a gender recognition certificate does not affect the way that it risk-assesses that person. The Prison Service already places people in the most appropriate estate, whether that is for their own safety or the safety of others, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate.

That is the right approach and it is reassuring in terms of the process. We are talking about a tiny number of people and it is important not to conflate two things. There is no evidence at all that there is a higher number of sex offenders within the trans community; in fact, the overwhelming evidence is that sexual offences are committed mainly by men on women. However, where there are transgender prisoners, whatever their offence, the management of them is down to the Scottish Prison Service and it does that very carefully. It has a review under way at the moment, which will guide it on whether it needs to make any further changes.

Yes. It has mainly been at official level—Peter Hope-Jones can say more about that—but there has been on-going engagement all the way through the bill process. Will you say a bit more about the engagement that you have had with officials, Peter?

No, I do not think that it is, because the rights are enshrined in the 2010 act, so I would assume that there would have to be a change to the 2010 act. What would be the basis for changing the transgender protections under the 2010 act for one part of the UK? There would probably be no legal basis for doing so, for a start. The act enshrines the same protections for everybody across the UK, whether or not they have a GRC, and that is not going to change.

We are trying to get clarification of what the EHRC thinks the relevance of those protections to the bill is. We do not believe that there is any, and I think that that view is shared by the SHRC. It is not the only thing that we have not been able to get clarification of from the EHRC. We have asked it for clarification of a number of things that do not seem to have particular relevance to the bill, and we wait with interest to see what comes back.

As you say, in 2021, the chief statistician published guidance for public bodies on the collection of data on sex and gender, and the current chief statistician is continuing to engage with a range of public bodies to support their application of the guidance.

I know that there has been a particular focus on the recording of crime statistics, for example. As you know, crime recording for operational purposes is a matter for the respective body, be that Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service or the courts.

It is worth noting that we publish the national statistics on criminal proceedings in Scotland every year, and those are derived from data that is held on the criminal history system, which is an operational database maintained by Police Scotland. There are such small numbers involved here that I think the view is that there is not going to be a statistical impact from any changes that the bill will introduce.

Peter Hope-Jones may want to add to that.