Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 26 July 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1838 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee

Pre-budget Scrutiny 2023-24

Meeting date: 26 October 2022

Pauline McNeill

Good afternoon. I will go back to the issue of pay. Mr Haggart, you told my colleague Katy Clark that the pay negotiations were taking place at the NJC at national level. There is talk of a 5 per cent pay increase, and Katy Clark already said that it looks like that is likely to be rejected. If the NJC arrives at a figure, whether it is 5 per cent, 6 per cent or something else, do you simply have to implement that figure out of your existing budget? I know that you have a seat round the table but could a decision be made in a national forum on a figure that you would just have to implement regardless?

Criminal Justice Committee

Pre-budget Scrutiny 2023-24

Meeting date: 26 October 2022

Pauline McNeill

Thank you. Perhaps you cannot answer my next question and it needs to be asked of the chief constable. I raised the issue before. We can see how concerning the situation is, based on those numbers. One of the reasons that police officers are choosing to retire is the conditions that they are working in. For example, as I said, they are having their rest days and holidays cancelled at the last minute.

Do not answer this question if you feel that it is for the chief constable, but has there been any response to that? As an organisation, you would want to try to retain those police officers and their experience given the stark points that you have outlined to the committee. Are you able to say about how you will try to address that?

Criminal Justice Committee

Pre-budget Scrutiny 2023-24

Meeting date: 26 October 2022

Pauline McNeill

When you talk about a reduction of 4,400 staff, do you mean staff and not officers, or is it a mix of staff and officers?

Criminal Justice Committee

Pre-budget Scrutiny 2023-24

Meeting date: 26 October 2022

Pauline McNeill

In your last sentence, you said that you are monitoring police officers leaving and coming back as civilians. Are you suggesting that they would not be able to do that because it is encouraging them to take retirement if they come back as civilians? Is that what you meant?

Criminal Justice Committee

Pre-budget Scrutiny 2023-24

Meeting date: 26 October 2022

Pauline McNeill

We heard evidence from the police service that virtually no more savings can be made. Transformational change and moving to a single service have used up a lot of that room. I think that you said something similar. It sounds like we are hearing comparable evidence from the fire service and police service that there is nowhere else to go.

Do you have concerns that we might lose fire service officers from the front line if there is no satisfactory pay settlement? Do you have any concerns about retaining firefighters in the long run?

Criminal Justice Committee

Pre-budget Scrutiny 2023-24

Meeting date: 26 October 2022

Pauline McNeill

Good morning. My question has kind of been covered. I was going to ask about the implications of having a flat cash budget. You have outlined stark terms to the committee, and I want to confirm that I have understood things correctly.

I will start with David Page. All three witnesses seem to be saying that, if the issue is not resolved, there will be a serious reduction in service and, perhaps more fundamentally, a change in the model that we have been used to of an exemplary Scottish police force. I agree with Jamie Greene. The role that the force has played in Scotland, and its exemplary record on big events, is different from the model in other forces across the UK.

I presume that you have put that to the cabinet secretary and to the Scottish Government. Given what you have outlined to the committee, which is very concerning, what response are you getting from the Government on the stark reality if a flat cash settlement remains in place for the next four years?

Criminal Justice Committee

Pre-budget Scrutiny 2023-24

Meeting date: 26 October 2022

Pauline McNeill

Lynn Brown, have you similarly expressed those views to the Government, and what response are you getting?

Meeting of the Parliament

Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 6 October 2022

Pauline McNeill

The amendments concern issues that I raised yesterday at stage 2, when the Government indicated that it would give support if I framed the provisions correctly. That has now been done.

The amendments ensure that a landlord cannot insist on a proposed increase until a rent officer or the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland has approved the increase. Further to that, in their communication to the tenant, the landlord should make it clear that the new rent will not be payable until the application has been approved or otherwise. That is just to make sure that tenants are aware that an application could be refused by the tribunal.

I hope that ministers will now be satisfied that amendments 4 and 5 are in the correct form and that I can move them when the time comes.

I move amendment 4.

Meeting of the Parliament

Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 6 October 2022

Pauline McNeill

This amendment should have been debated yesterday, but it got lost in the rush. I should explain that point, in case the minister thinks that I am raising a new issue at stage 3.

The amendment would have the effect of preventing schedule 3 from coming to an end, and it would allow ministers to set rules by regulation in relation to rent adjudication.

In the consultation on my Fair Rents (Scotland) Bill in the previous parliamentary session, an issue arose about cases in which tenants had applied to the tribunal for a rent reduction and ended up with a substantial rent increase. The tribunal increased rents, because its opinion was that that would reflect the market rent. In some cases, the tribunal has been challenged on what the market rent is and, in my view, it has not got that correct.

My concern is about the disincentive for tenants to apply to the tribunal for a rent reduction. They might accept that losing their case would mean that their rent remained the same, but if they thought that they might end up with a rent increase, why would they take such a risk?

I am probing the issue for discussion when the Government considers wider housing reform. I am a bit concerned about how long that is taking, so I wanted to raise the issue now. I do not wish to press the amendment, which is intended to probe an issue.

I move amendment 3.

Meeting of the Parliament

Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill

Meeting date: 6 October 2022

Pauline McNeill

I begin by welcoming the emergency legislation. I, too, welcome the work by the legislation team and the clerks to make it happen. Mark Griffin, our spokesperson on housing, was quite right when he said that the law generally does not balance the rights and interests of landlords and tenants. I am pleased that the Government is now committed to doing that.

I also want to put on record—I can say this quite openly because of the work that I did during the previous session of Parliament—that the legislation is not an attack on landlords. The vast majority of landlords are good and decent landlords, and many of them have a few properties, so let us recognise that profile.

The backdrop to today, as Paul Sweeney eloquently talked about, is an acute cost of living crisis. There has been an acute economic shock, there is severe risk to people’s mortgages and pensions and there is uncertainty about the future. However, no one has mentioned the impact of that on young people.

Young people today are largely found in the private rented sector, because they have no chance of getting on to the social housing ladder. Most MSPs will know that from their constituency case work. I agree with the Tories that we have not done enough to increase housing supply—we all know that. However, we must recognise that the private rented sector in particular is where most poverty is found; it is where more poor families are found; and it is where there are severe inequalities. Therefore, it is right that this Government puts at the heart of its programme the need to address all that and to reform housing law.

Students in the private rented sector have no rights even to challenge their high rents in the university sector, because it contracted with parties that wrote into the contract that students had no rights and had to endure high rent.

I welcome the bill and the constructive nature of the debate. Let me put on record that I recognise the consistency of the housing minister Patrick Harvie in his dealings on this bill, but I cannot miss the opportunity to say to the SNP that, for all the speeches that I have heard today, not one SNP member supported my member’s bill on fair rents in the previous session of Parliament. They have to recognise that we could have been in a different place today, and I want to talk through why I think that.

I do not know what they were frightened of, and I think that they have to put their hands up to that. I am deeply concerned that the length of time that it will take to make the further housing reforms in this session of Parliament could mean that it will happen at the end of the session. However, let us hope that that does not happen.

In my Fair Rents (Scotland) Bill, there was a requirement to register data, as we talked about in an earlier exchange. However, importantly, there was also a provision in my bill that, although it capped rent increases at the consumer prices index plus 1 per cent, would have given ministers the power to set the cap at any level. If members look at the schedule to the current emergency legislation, they will see that its provision is pretty much the same as mine was.

I hope that SNP members will forgive my frustration around that; I just felt that I could have had a wee bit of support in the previous session of Parliament. Of course, I fully realise that member’s bills do not always make it. However, I hope that that is recognised and that we can get back on track in terms of working together to ensure that, in the wider framework on housing reform, we get it right. We need to recognise that tenants should have the right to challenge their rents and that those rents should not be increased when tenants do so, and there should be data so that landlords and tenants across the country can see what rents look like.

I recognise the emergency nature of the legislation. We need to do something now in relation to evictions and rents. I hope that, going forward, there is a bigger commitment from the Government to ensure that its housing bill does not come at the tail end of 2025. I would like the minister, in his closing speech, to commit to working harder to ensure that we see the housing reforms sooner than that.

I will be supporting the emergency legislation at decision time tonight, and I thank everyone for their hard work on it.

16:27