Chamber and committees

They—our neighbours, friends and families—require nothing less.

Can the minister say what we can learn, and apply here in Scotland, from the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which was introduced by the then Green MLA Rachel Woods, and which created an entitlement to 10 days of paid leave

“for victims of domestic abuse; and for connected purposes”?

The award-winning journalist Vicky Spratt recently published a book titled “Tenants: The People on the Frontline of Britain’s Housing Emergency”. She points out that behind the undeniable reality of a housing emergency lies a series of separate but connected emergencies: the instability of the private rented sector, unaffordable housing, the hoarding of property wealth, a lack of social housing and, of course, rising homelessness and all that that involves.

The housing crisis is inextricably linked to and bound up with wealth inequality, and to talk about wealth is to discuss the inequalities of class as well as gender, sexuality, race and other categories of marginalisation. If we are serious about tackling the housing emergency, we must tackle wealth inequality, yet we have heard little about that today.

The First Minister has made it very clear that the number 1 mission for his Government is to tackle child poverty. We have debated various aspects of how we should do that here before, but it has been quite noticeable that few members have linked child poverty to the housing emergency. Across the UK, there are 17.5 million adults without a safe, secure or stable home. When we include children, that number rises to 22 million people—that is one in three people.

The homelessness figures that were published last week show that women who are mothers are particularly affected. We know that 26 per cent of households assessed as homeless or threatened with homelessness contain children and that households with children spend, on average, the longest time in temporary accommodation. More than half spend more than six months there, and a quarter spend more than a year in temporary accommodation before their cases are closed. That period is more than three years for 4 per cent of households with children, compared to just 1 per cent of households without children, and 3 per cent of households with children are placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. As we have heard this afternoon, there were 10,110 children in temporary accommodation as of 31 March this year—the highest number in the time series.

If we are serious in our ambitions to tackle child poverty, we must consider how we tackle the housing emergency. We cannot just tweak the edges of our housing system. As Ben Macpherson said so passionately, sticking-plaster politics will not cut it. Our housing system is broken. It does not serve people. It views housing as a commodity or an investment, not a right or a home. That drives up prices and leaves many people—especially those on lower incomes—unable to afford homes. It channels investment away from affordable and social housing to speculative property investment. Without sufficient public housing, the private market dominates.

The housing market has failed to meet demand, particularly in rural areas, as Ariane Burgess and Rhoda Grant described. That has knock-on consequences for public service workers who cannot find homes where they need to be for work. The market has also failed to address environmental and quality issues. I am sure that we all have had constituents come to us with problems of cold, draughty, mould-ridden homes. Unlike Willie Rennie, I think that we should build homes that meet the standards that evidence tells us will keep people warm and healthy and so reduce the burden on other public services. That is prevention in action.

That is why the Housing (Scotland) Bill matters. It is a start at tackling some of the structural problems in our housing system, and rent controls are crucial to that. Sue Webber ascribed problems that we currently face to rent controls, and they do not even exist yet. Miles Briggs says that rent controls do not work. I presume that that is why cities across the world—from Paris, Berlin and Stockholm to New York, San Francisco and Montreal—all have rent controls. Incidentally, artists and musicians in Montreal credit rent controls for the thriving creative and cultural sector in that affordable city.

Rent controls matter because they tackle soaring rent prices that leave tenants vulnerable to exploitation by landlords. They also prevent tenants from being priced out of their homes and communities. They give tenants greater security and stability in their housing and reduce the power imbalance between landlords and renters. They contribute to long-term affordability and help to address inequality by ensuring that housing remains within the reach of people on lower incomes. They combat housing insecurity and, importantly, investment insecurity.

—in which he restated his commitment to robust rent controls, but we need more than just assurances. We need to see the details.

To conclude—

I have read that report. It depends on what we think counts as success. If it means making homes affordable for the majority of people, rent controls are a success. If it means making some rich people slightly less rich, I am not that bothered about that.

In short, rent controls play an important part in reducing homelessness, but there are many other actions that we must explore in order to tackle homelessness. As Crisis and other organisations say, prevention must be a priority, as must investment in social housing. Christine Grahame outlined some clear mechanisms to deliver that, including the housing first model. We also need to address youth and hidden homelessness, and we must take a holistic approach to support services, including mental health support services, and so much more.

I thank Paul McLennan for his intervention during Ariane Burgess’s speech—

Thanks, Alan. That point about culture was raised a few times earlier, as well. It is clearly very important.

Will you elaborate on that a little? You talked about the failures of the current equalities mechanisms and said that the duties do not actually work because they are too narrow. You also said something about the challenges of mainstreaming and how we understand that. We heard earlier from Angela O’Hagan about some of the failures of mainstreaming in the broad rights and equalities landscape. How could the proposed legislation have allowed us to take a view that was not different to mainstreaming but would enable that embedding—I was going to use the word “foundationing”; sorry, that is a terrible word—that would make us take human rights and equality seriously from the start rather than see them as an add-on or as something fluffy and extra down the line?

The committee has talked about the fact that certain groups of people might have easier or better access to rights than others. Does Amnesty face particular challenges in the work that it does with immigrants—people who have come here for a range of reasons, by choice or otherwise—that such a bill could have supported you with? We talk about human rights as a universal concept, but we do not apply human rights universally. Could you say a bit more about that?

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for being here this morning and for everything that they have outlined they have done in this space so far.

I am interested in teasing out why everybody thinks that the bill is such an important piece of legislation. The simple question is what difference such a bill would make. In your answers, could you think about where there are deficiencies in the current human rights landscape in Scotland, and whether those are deficiencies of law, service provision or implementation of policies or strategies? Until we learned that there was not going to be a bill in this session, we heard that so much hope was pinned on this piece of legislation. What difference do you think that the bill could have or should have made for Scotland because of existing deficiencies and gaps in the landscape? I put that to all of you. I do not know who wants to go first.

I will pick up on your last statement that public bodies would have to prioritise human rights—that there would be the risk of legal action if they did not. Emma Hutton might want to come back on this point as well. On access to justice, does the current landscape allow individuals to seek remedy, which has instead to be done through organisations or some other mechanism?