Chamber and committees

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?

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?

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

What we have heard this morning is stark and concerning, but we have not even got to an issue that we have already heard about in evidence, which is the number of police officers that have retired or indicated that they will retire. Given what the panel has said about the flat cash settlement, the savings that you have already made and the pressure that is on you with regard to staffing and police officer numbers, what impact is the impending retirement of police officers having? Do you have up-to-date figures on that?

We have previously seen figures for officers who have indicated that they will retire with 30-years’ service or retire early. There is some relationship to pension changes, although the federation has said that that is not the only reason why we are losing police officers. It said that morale in the force is low.

A few months ago, I raised with the First Minister the issue of officers complaining of their leave being cancelled at the last minute and of their not being given proper welfare treatment and so on, and the suggestion that that is the reason why we are losing officers. Can you comment on the impact of that issue? Any update on the retirement figures would be very welcome.

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?

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?

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?

I thank the minister for his comprehensive response. I totally acknowledge that the issue would be more appropriately addressed in wider housing reform, but the bill presented a good opportunity for me to make the minister aware that I will pursue the issue with the Government. I am sure that he agrees that, whatever framework we choose for housing reform, we do not want to continue to have legislation that could disincentivise tenants from applying for rent assessments because of the risk of rent increases. Rent controls might well overtake that situation.

On that basis, I am content to seek to withdraw amendment 3.

Amendment 3, by agreement, withdrawn.

Schedule 1—Rent cap

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.

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.