Thank you Mr. President,

I would like to express our gratitude on behalf of the Netherlands for the extensive working visit of the Special Rapporteur to the Netherlands in December last year. Professor Rajagopal came well prepared. He took plenty of time to study the many facets of Dutch public housing policy.
He discussed the main points of the policy with top officials and visited individual households for behind-the-door meetings.
This has resulted in a comprehensive report.

The Special Rapporteur concludes his report with a total of 65 recommendations, spread over 8 categories. In the short time that is given to me in this intervention, I would not be able to do Professor Rajagopal's report justice. So let me start by underlining that the report will get the attention it deserves from my Government. The report will be presented to the Dutch Parliament, accompanied by an extensive policy response form the Government. We will also forward this response to the UN Human Rights Council.

Having said that, I cannot avoid briefly mentioning a few things:

1. The Special Rapporteur rightly notes that the Netherlands has been facing an acute housing crisis, manifesting itself as a crisis of both availability and affordability. There are several causes for this crisis. The Netherlands is the second most densely populated Member State in the EU (5 times more inhabitants per m2 than the EU average) and the fastest growing of all Member States which is a major cause of the housing crisis we are currently experiencing. The Special Rapporteur notes that many good steps have been taken in the past two years to tackle this crisis. He makes several recommendations to further improve the policy. We will take this to heart.
 

2. The Special Rapporteur makes quite some recommendations to adjust national legislation. Most recommendations fit in well with processes that are already underway. The Netherlands considers the advice to amend the Constitution to be quite far-reaching. The Public Housing Management Act provides an adequate set of instruments to fulfil the constitutional mandate and to steer how much, for whom, and where we build at a faster pace and more control to realize more affordable housing. The new Public Housing Governance Act (Wet Versterking Regie Volkhuisvesting) clarifies and gives substance to the responsibilities and competences of the different tiers of governments, adds new legal instruments and strengthens the ‘line of command’ in order to ensure proper regional coordination of public and private actors to attain the national quantitative mid-term public goals for affordable housing.
 

3. The Special Rapporteur notes that policy has been organised in a fragmented manner since the dissolution of the Ministry of Housing in 2010 and recommends that this ministry be reinstated and that all public housing tasks be brought together there. Our response to this is that in recent years there has already been a dedicated Minister of Housing and Spatial Planning, who has ensured a better coordinated policy. Setting up a new Ministry of Housing takes time and will deteriorate the performance power for some time. Whether there will be a separate ministry again is up to the next cabinet: Negotiations about a new government are currently underway.
 

4. The Special Rapporteur notes that the Dutch have a long and rich tradition in social housing characterised by quality housing, providing affordable homes for lower, and to some extent, to middle-income households. The Dutch government and the Special Rapporteur agree that this is something that needs to be nurtured and requires maintenance, otherwise it will become unaffordable for low- and middle-income groups to live in cities. Spatial segregation must be avoided. In addition to problem areas, the Special Rapporteur has also seen examples of places where good cooperation took place to increase the quality of life in neighbourhoods. We think that the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act provides municipalities with instruments to improve these neighbourhoods, including for the most vulnerable groups. Amendments to the Inner City Problems (Special Measures) Act that have been submitted to Parliament also have the approval of the National Coordinator against Discrimination and Racism.
 

5. The Special Rapporteur rightly states that specific policies are needed for specific target groups, such as students and migrant workers. Each of these groups have different housing needs. Improvements are indeed possible in this respect and that has our attention.
 

6. Finally, a note on the reception of refugees and asylum seekers. The Special Rapporteur has visited several emergency shelter locations in the Netherlands. He noted a number of shortcomings, but also saw that the employees work with great dedication and care on a daily basis. In our opinion, the conclusion that the housing at reception locations is substandard is too general and drawn too quickly. We recognize that reception options for asylum seekers have been too limited, and that this problem has further increased with the arrival of Ukrainian refugees, but with the adoption of the Distribution Law last January, steps are being taken to improve the situation.
 

To conclude, I would once more like to thank the Special Rapporteur for his visit to the Netherlands and for providing us with such a comprehensive report. It is another example of the value of the work of the Human Rights Council and Special Rapporteurs to individual countries since it provides countries with a clear outside reflection of their national policies and practices and where improvements can be made. It is therefore that the Kingdom of the Netherlands will continue to extend a standing invitation to all mandate holders falling under special procedures of the Human Rights Council. 
 

I thank you.