Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 1078 seeks to place a duty on the Scottish ministers to prioritise, in the social housing stock, housing that would meet the needs of families with many children. Everyone is aware of the very high number of children who are stuck in temporary accommodation in Scotland. That issue has been well debated and rehearsed in the chamber and elsewhere. We know that, beyond that number, many more face the threat of homelessness.

Larger families are disproportionately affected by the risk of the rising cost of rents, mortgages and other bills. As such, they are often forced into inadequate and cramped housing—an inappropriate environment for children to grow up and develop in.

Given Scotland’s incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 27 of which notes that young people should be able to live in a way that helps them to reach their full physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social potential, it is imperative that we take action through the bill.

I am very grateful to Mr Balfour for his intervention. We should set out in law our expectations about Government and local authority processes that will inform strategic housing investment plans and various council mechanisms to develop houses of the right size and scale. That will have an impact on what I am trying to do to help larger families who face challenges. As well as a legislative requirement, there would be a requirement for guidance and interaction with local authorities and housing associations that deliver housing on the ground.

I certainly recognise what Mr Doris said about local authorities having wider duties to consider the size and scale of housing development and people’s needs, but giving the duty a legislative footing is important because it would put it clearly at the front of people’s minds when considerations were made.

As Mr Doris alluded to, there are a lot of competing demands. In particular, there is a need for smaller-sized housing for older people and for adapted housing of various sizes. However, the significant crisis in relation to housing for larger families and the UNCRC duties mean that it is important that we put the duty in the bill itself, to ensure that councils and other developers are thinking about that need very clearly and so that there is a legal mechanism to enable them to fulfil the duty. Overcrowded housing does not live up to the rights in the UNCRC that we have committed to, and there is an opportunity to address failures through the bill.

As I said, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure from the beginning, when new social housing stock is being developed, that there are homes of a suitable size and that those who need access to social housing are not forced into the sort of cramped and unsuitable accommodation that I referred to.

I am pleased that the amendment has the support of organisations such as Aberlour, which has worked to develop the thinking and the debate around the issue. It does vital work in supporting at-risk and in-need families, and it has furnished all members with much of the difficult to hear testimony of families who are unable to access appropriately sized homes.

I am keen to listen carefully to the minister about the actions and methods that exist to address the wider problem. It is important to put that on the agenda. I go back to Mr Doris’s point that we can have a broader conversation about housing need, but it is important that we look to address these issues through the bill. There might be an opportunity, at this stage or at a future stage, to do that in a clear and precise way.

On the other amendments in the group, I welcome the proposal from my colleague Mark Griffin, which also seeks to ensure that children’s interests and rights are fully addressed through the bill. I do not think that the bill can be allowed to pass without making at least some progress on the pathway to tackling what I am sure that we all agree are the scandalous conditions that many children in Scotland find themselves living in.

I move amendment 1078.

I think that this has been a helpful first discussion of the issues. A number of members have referred to the wider debates that we had yesterday in the chamber and earlier on support for children in temporary accommodation. The issues are certainly well known—Shelter’s report, for example, has been very helpful in crystallising many of them—and we will continue to have those debates and discussions. That will be important.

The idea behind my amendment and Mr Griffin’s amendments is to put the issue on the agenda and ensure that we have a debate on it in advance of stage 3. I note the minister’s offer to meet and discuss the issues, to think about the mechanisms for complying with the UNCRC and to ensure that councils and housing associations can be better supported to deliver the right mix of homes. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw amendment 1078 at this stage, prior to further discussions with the minister, but I reserve the right to bring it back at stage 3 if required.

Amendment 1078, by agreement, withdrawn.

Good morning. Throughout our evidence sessions, I have asked about inclusive communication. The Scottish Government has revised its approach such that, instead of having a specific duty on inclusive communication, it will use a ministerial power to draw attention to guidance and materials on inclusive communication. It would be useful to understand why that change was made to the initial proposal on inclusive communication. What do you think that the new proposal will achieve?

Good morning. As we have discussed throughout our inquiry, the Scottish Government has revised its approach to inclusive communication. Instead of there being a specific duty, the intention is to use ministerial powers to draw attention to guidance and materials on inclusive communication.

John, you raised the concern that, given that the Equality Act 2010 already provides for reasonable adjustments, the Scottish Government’s proposal could be viewed as unclear. Could you maybe explain the EHRC’s position on that proposal?

Part of the challenge is that, although we heard from public bodies and local authorities that they are aware of the duty and want to ensure that they are fulfilling it, we also heard from disabled people’s organisations in particular that inclusive communication is just not happening as standard. A resourcing issue was mentioned, too. Would you want to see all that brought together and acknowledged so that we have a more robust system?

That was quite an overview. Do you recognise the evidence that we have taken from other witnesses—particularly those from local authorities and other parts of the public sector—that the challenge is one of resourcing? I appreciate what you said about practical support and resources, although this piece of work is more about developing and standardising guidance and trying to “fill the gaps”, as Nick Bland said.

Do you recognise that there is an overall resource challenge for local authorities regarding making things available in easy-read format and ensuring that that happens as a matter of course, rather than happening reactively? Do you recognise a lot of the things that those witnesses said? What is the Government’s intention with regard to providing that resource support?

So, your view is that public bodies will be able to access the resource as a means of delivering. That is the challenge. Local authorities say that they are aware of their duty and that they want to do more, but they very often do not have the resources that they need in terms of people and staffing—let us be honest—or time. Will that work have a demonstrable impact on the availability of time and staffing resources?

Okay. I heard your offer to come back to the committee on the detail of that, which I think would be useful to colleagues, and then we can perhaps review the implementation.