How Scotland’s Temporary Accommodation System Breaks the Law — And Why We’re Done Pretending It Doesn’t

Safeguarding is not a courtesy.
It is not a “nice to have”.
It is not something councils can switch on and off depending on the mood of their budget meeting.

Safeguarding is law.

And right now, across Scotland — and especially in Glasgow — that law is being broken in real time, in real buildings, with real consequences for women, children, men and trans people placed into unsafe temporary accommodation.

This is not theory.
This is not rhetoric.
This is not “political debate”.

This is harm, happening under the watch of public bodies who know the law, quote the law, and still choose to ignore the law.

1. What safeguarding actually means in Scotland — in law, not PR

Safeguarding is not a vague moral duty. It is a legal framework with teeth. Scotland has some of the clearest statutory duties in the UK:

Children

  • Children (Scotland) Act 1995
    Councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need.
  • National Child Protection Guidance
    Every local authority must operate a functioning child protection system.

Adults

  • Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007
    Councils must investigate and act where an adult is at risk of harm.

Equality and safety

  • Equality Act 2010
    Protects people on grounds including sex and gender reassignment.
    Allows single‑sex services where needed for safety, dignity and privacy.

Homelessness

  • Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and subsequent amendments
    Councils must provide temporary accommodation that is suitable and safe.
  • Scottish Government Code of Guidance on Homelessness
    Temporary accommodation must meet safety, management and suitability standards.
  • Temporary Accommodation Standards Framework
    Sets out expectations for physical safety, safeguarding, and management.

None of these laws contain an asterisk that says:

“Unless the council is short of money.”
“Unless the hotel contract is convenient.”
“Unless the placement is politically embarrassing.”

Safeguarding is not suspended by budget pressure.

2. Who is supposed to enforce safeguarding?

Scotland has a full architecture of oversight bodies:

  • Care Inspectorate — inspects registered care services and investigates safeguarding concerns.
  • Scottish Housing Regulator — oversees social landlords and homelessness duties.
  • Equality and Human Rights Commission — enforces the Equality Act.
  • Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) — investigates maladministration.
  • Child Protection Committees and Adult Protection Committees — local multi‑agency safeguarding bodies.

On paper, this looks robust.

In practice, temporary accommodation sits in a regulatory blind spot:

  • Hotels and B&Bs used for homeless households are not registered care services, so the Care Inspectorate has limited jurisdiction.
  • Councils treat these placements as “just accommodation”, even when the risk profile is equivalent to a supported or protected environment.
  • The Scottish Housing Regulator focuses on governance and outcomes, not day‑to‑day safeguarding failures.
  • The Equality Act is rarely enforced proactively.
  • The SPSO can only act after harm has occurred.

This is how a system becomes dangerous while still claiming to be compliant.

3. What is happening in Glasgow is not an accident — it is a pattern

Women and children placed in mixed‑sex hotels with no control over who shares corridors.
Trans people placed in environments where harassment is predictable.
Security staff with no visible safeguarding training.
Hotel owners and managers operating with no transparency and no public accountability.
Councils citing “lack of resources” while continuing to pour millions into temporary accommodation contracts.

Research backs this up:

  • Children in temporary accommodation experience significant harm to wellbeing, education and development.
  • Women report fear, harassment, sexual abuse and lack of safety in mixed‑sex hotel placements.
  • Trans people report being placed in environments that are unsafe, hostile or traumatising.

This is not a one‑off.
This is not a misunderstanding.
This is a systemic breach of safeguarding law.

4. Are councils above the law? No.

So why is there no punishment?**

Let’s be clear:

Councils are not above the law.
But they behave as if they are — because the enforcement system allows them to.

Why there is no meaningful accountability

  • Enforcement is reactive, not proactive.
  • Regulators prefer “engagement” over sanctions.
  • People in crisis rarely have the capacity to challenge unlawful placements.
  • Ministers avoid the detail in public statements.
  • Councils hide behind “resources” as if that rewrites statute.

But the law does not bend for convenience.

The Supreme Court has already ruled against Glasgow City Council on homelessness duties.
The precedent is clear: when challenged, councils lose.

The problem is not the law.
The problem is the silence.

5. The transparency questions Glasgow must answer

These are the questions any functioning safeguarding system would already have answered publicly:

  • Who owns and profits from the hotels and B&Bs used for temporary accommodation?
  • What safeguarding checks are required of owners, managers and security staff?
  • Where is the evidence of staff training?
  • Where are the incident logs?
  • Where is the data on violence, harassment, exploitation and complaints?
  • Where are the gender‑based risk assessments?
  • Where is the oversight?
  • Who is accountable when harm occurs?

Right now, the answer is the same across Scotland:

Silence.

6. Safeguarding is the floor, not the ceiling

Scotland cannot claim to be a nation that protects the vulnerable while placing women, children and trans people into unsafe, unregulated, mixed‑sex environments and calling it “temporary accommodation”.

Safeguarding is not optional.
It is not flexible.
It is not suspended by budget meetings.

It is the law.

And the law is being broken.

7. A final word for Tuesday’s boardroom

On Tuesday, when the spreadsheets come out and the “financial pressures” are rehearsed again, let every person around that table understand this:

We know the duplicity.
We know the gap between the law and the practice.
We know the harm.
We know the silence.

And we will not let safeguarding be treated as a line item to be negotiated.

Before anyone signs off another contract, another placement, another budget line, let them remember this:

The taxpayer is being asked to pay higher council tax to dig the council out of a hole created by its own unlawful decisions — while the most vulnerable pay the real price.

Safeguarding is not a cost.
It is a duty.
And it is time it was enforced.