Rents
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported figures showing that average rents increased at a higher rate in Scotland than any other region or nation in the United Kingdom between September 2022 and March 2024. (S6T-02000)
The statistics for Scotland are based predominantly on newly advertised rents and do not take into account in-tenancy rent increases, which were initially frozen and then largely kept at 3 per cent while emergency legislation was in place. They do not represent the whole private rented sector in Scotland, so they are not suitable for like-for-like comparisons with other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Housing (Scotland) Bill includes a package of reforms to improve affordability and strengthen tenants’ rights. We will continue to work with stakeholders across the sector as we develop a system of rent control that works for Scotland.
What is more important than the words, which are similar to what the minister put out in his press release at the weekend, is looking at what is happening on the ground. Scottish Conservatives warned ministers that the only outcome of the Scottish National Party and Green Party Government’s approach to rent controls would be higher rents and a loss of supply, both of which are now becoming apparent. Does the minister accept that rent controls have been a disaster for tenants, by decimating the housing market, and that they are pushing up rents in Scotland?
There are a couple of things to put that into context. As stated by the Office for National Statistics, Scotland’s rent data and statistics are mainly for advertised new rents, which is important. The ONS advises users to bear that in mind when interpreting estimates for Scotland and comparing them with other UK countries. It goes on to say:
“the lack of data on existing tenants benefitting from rent controls, and changes to the Rent Adjudication system, will lead to over-estimation in stock prices and indices for Scotland since late 2022.”
That is important context to add.
The other important thing is that the latest figures on the number of tenancies on the landlord register show an increase of 2.1 per cent between August 2022 and April 2024. We will continue to engage on the issue with stakeholders, and with Mr Briggs, through the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
Last week, the Government declared a housing emergency. Many in the sector welcomed that and have been expressing concern for some time that the SNP’s Housing (Scotland) Bill will only make matters worse. The rent-setting provision in the bill will only prevent investment, which the minister has said he is keen to secure in Scotland. Will the Scottish Government honestly look towards a more flexible rent regulation approach than the one that the bill outlines?
As the member knows, I have met stakeholders, including investors, on a number of occasions to discuss that. There is always a balance to be found between protecting people in the most vulnerable areas under rent controls and encouraging investment in the sector. As I said, we continue to meet stakeholders as part of the bill process.
Does the minister agree that the UK Government’s backtracking on even the most basic reforms to the private rented sector proves that, without a doubt, Scotland is the best place in the UK to rent in, with stronger tenants’ rights and a commitment, through the upcoming bill, to fairer, more affordable housing for all?
Yes. With robust tenants’ rights and an unwavering commitment to fairer, more affordable housing for all in the forthcoming Housing (Scotland) Bill, Scotland is setting high standards. In these challenging times, it is essential that we concentrate our efforts on supporting the most vulnerable people in society. That is the balance that I talked about earlier.
Our shared objective is to provide safe, affordable and high-quality homes for all. A well-regulated private rented sector benefits everyone who is involved—tenants, landlords and investors alike. That is not a novel concept. Our European neighbours have proven that a strong regulatory framework is compatible with a sizeable private rented sector. We will strive to emulate and surpass those successful models to ensure the best possible outcomes for all stakeholders in the housing sector.
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I ceased being a private landlord last summer.
The huge rent increases are a symptom of the housing emergency that Parliament and Government acknowledged last week. When does the Government expect to formally respond to that declaration and bring forward actions to lift the country out of the housing emergency that we are experiencing?
I again come back to the context that the Office for National Statistics set out for the figures. As Mr Briggs and Mr Griffin know, I was keen to discuss the bill and the housing emergency. I engaged with stakeholders on that very recently, at the weekend, and we discussed the best way to take that forward. I am happy to discuss that with the member, as I indicated.
Here we are again. The Office for National Statistics repeatedly warned that the statistics cannot be compared like for like, and those who lobby for landlord profits and against tenant interests repeatedly show that they do not care about the reality. Given that between-tenancy rent increases are too high, does the minister agree that it would be utterly perverse to use that as a justification to remove protection from those between-tenancy increases from the rent control proposals in the Housing (Scotland) Bill?
I agree with Mr Harvie on the ONS statistics, and it is really important to set out that context, as has been mentioned here before.
On the wider Housing (Scotland) Bill discussions, we continue to engage with stakeholders on achieving the balance that I mentioned previously.
Daniel Johnson has a brief supplementary question.
I am sure that the minister agrees that the key to solving the housing emergency is boosting investment and supply. Given that the sector is clear that the lack of clarity in the Housing (Scotland) Bill is a concern, is the Government considering a national formula for rent regulation to provide the consistency and clarity that the sector is asking for?
As Mr Johnson knows, I have met investors on a number of occasions. I have also met the likes of Living Rent to discuss its concerns.
The Housing (Scotland) Bill provisions have been published, and we are looking to engage with stakeholders on the particular point that Mr Johnson mentioned. We will listen to investors and we will continue to listen to the likes of Living Rent to try to achieve the balance that I mentioned previously.
National Parent Forum of Scotland (Funding)
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it has reportedly withdrawn all funding for the National Parent Forum of Scotland. (S6T-01995)
The Scottish Government recognises and celebrates the need for strong parental engagement in children’s education. As such, we have concluded that there is a need to establish a broader, more representative model to support engagement from parents and carers. I am particularly conscious of the need to hear from a wider range of perspectives and experiences, including traditionally underrepresented groups such as parents and carers from minority ethnic backgrounds and those who have children with additional support needs.
Given its reach across Scotland, we have asked Connect to work with us to establish a national parent panel. Members will play a critical role in informing policy and providing advice and challenge to Government as we drive improvement in our education system.
I take the opportunity to thank the NPFS and all the volunteers who have helped to support its vital work over the years. I look forward to meeting them later this week to discuss ways in which they might be able to support the new approach moving forward.
The cabinet secretary will, of course, be aware that the chair of the forum, Cheryl Burnett, has said that she was
“shocked that a government headed by John Swinney, who was among the MSPs that worked to found the National Parent Forum of Scotland in the wake of the 2006 Parental Involvement act, would defund our vital work without any direct consultation.”
Can the cabinet secretary explain how parents were engaged in the decision-making process to defund the forum? Can she confirm how much money that decision will save?
I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for her interest in the issue.
I very much recognise the need for stronger parental engagement. The approach that I have set out through the new national parent panel will give us a better opportunity to hear from a wider range of voices across the system.
On the point about consultation, my officials have been directly engaged with the NPFS throughout the process. I have had sight of the letter that Cheryl Burnett shared with the First Minister, and I will meet her this week. I again put on the record my thanks to her for all the work that she has contributed to a range of different priorities for the Government over the years. Most recently, her contributions on behaviour have been really worth while. I very much hope that all the volunteers who were involved in the NPFS, including Cheryl Burnett, will contribute to the national parent panel.
It is worth my while saying that there was a level of duplication in the way in which we engaged with parents and carers nationally. This approach will give us a better opportunity to hear from a wider range of options in relation to views in the system.
Pam Duncan-Glancy asked a specific question about funding. I will put on the record the current funding agreement with the NPFS. It was £53,317 in the 2023-24 financial year. That covered running costs, and it included expenses for volunteer representatives. It did not include any staffing costs. As of 21 May, the NPFS had an underspend of £13,247.
I hope that that gives Pam Duncan-Glancy an understanding of the financials that are involved in the decision. My very clear steer is that the funding will now be used to support a new approach to a national parent panel, which I very much hope members of the NPFS will be engaged in.
There is much interest in this matter, so members should keep their questions and responses concise.
The cabinet secretary talked about engagement from her officials, but National Parent Forum of Scotland representatives have said that the decision was news to them.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that the NPFS is, in statute, a notifiable body. Can she confirm, therefore, how the Government intends to take that power from the forum and give it to a new body? Specifically, can she say whether Parliament will have a say in that change?
I am not necessarily clear, from the advice that I have had from officials, that Parliament requires to have a say on the changes in relation to funding, but I am happy to write to the member on that specific point.
However, I think that there is an opportunity, post pandemic, for us to look at parental engagement in the system. We know, anecdotally, that parental engagement post pandemic has been challenging for a number of our schools. For example, earlier this year I was in Aberdeen, where I talked to elected members about the challenges that schools have had in engaging with parents post pandemic. It is important that we have a renewed focus on that.
As we know, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in the programme for international student assessment results that it published towards the end of last year, talked about strong educational systems reflecting strong parental engagement, and about that being key in disadvantaged communities.
I see this change as an opportunity to strengthen, not weaken, parental engagement, and I very much look forward to working with Cheryl Burnett, and with the NPFS volunteers to which the member alluded, to that end.
What due diligence was done on the new provider before making the decision? Can we see it, along with the total anticipated costs arising?
My officials have been in discussion for some time with Connect, which is the organisation that is proposed to host the new national parent panel, about the potential for it to be offered funding to establish that panel. As Connect is a registered charity with professional staff and a board, it is well placed, in my officials’ assessment, and from the advice that I have been given, to host a panel to establish a more robust mechanism of gathering the views of a more diverse and representative range of parents.
I go back to some of the points that I made to Ms Duncan-Glancy on that. We need to hear a wider range of views with regard to the advice that ministers receive from Scotland’s parents. The detailed proposals and grant funding arrangements are currently under discussion. Connect has indicated that it will cost in the region of £50,000 a year to establish the panel, and it is working to have the new mechanism established in time for the new academic year, which I think is important.
If the member heard the figures that I shared with Ms Duncan Glancy with regard to the funding for NPFS, he will recognise the parity that is being provided in that regard
The cabinet secretary has comprehensively made it clear that the Government has taken the decision in order to strengthen engagement with parents and carers. Can she add anything further, in particular in and around the role that the views of parents and carers can play?
It is worth recounting that, to date, parents and carers have had a number of different opportunities to contribute to engagement in relation to education reform, including through the national discussion on education, which published its final report last year; the independent review of qualifications and assessment; and the consultation on the provisions in the proposed education bill.
As I have intimated today, the Government is committed to strengthening our approach to parental engagement to ensure that we have a range of different opportunities for parents and carers to shape and influence policy development and to provide challenge to Government, too.
However, we need to ensure, at this critical juncture in education reform, that we have meaningful engagement that draws on a wide range of perspectives and experiences from all parts of Scotland. Those partnerships with parents and carers are crucial to reforming our education system and ensuring that, together, we tackle some of the challenges that we currently face, such as attendance, behaviour and mobile phone use in schools. We are confident that our new approach, in establishing a national parent panel, will achieve that.
It is good to hear the cabinet secretary talk about broadening engagement with parents, but the obvious question is this: why could the National Parent Forum of Scotland not be the vehicle for broadening that engagement? Why did that require such an abrupt and radical change?
I do not accept that it is particularly radical, nor that it is particularly abrupt, given some of the changes to funding that I described in my response to a previous question today. I am happy to share details of the change with Mr Kerr. Connect, which is a parental charity organisation with a professional staff team and reach across Scotland, has been asked to establish the national parent panel to ensure that a strengthened approach is delivered. As I mentioned, it is aimed at ensuring that a broader range of views is captured.
Detailed work is well under way between Connect and my officials to set up that mechanism. As I said in my response to the member’s colleague, Liam Kerr, it will be operational in time for the new academic year, which is crucial.
Football-related Disorder (Glasgow)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is regarding any implications for community safety to the events that occurred in Trongate, Glasgow, following Celtic Football Club’s league title win. (S6T-01996)
The Scottish Government condemns the incidents of violence, vandalism and antisocial behaviour that took place in Glasgow on Saturday. Any threat to public safety and any damage that was caused as a result of that disorder is not acceptable.
We fully support Police Scotland and other emergency services, and thank them for their response. We also support Glasgow City Council, which was left to clear up the rubbish and damage. I appreciate the help that Celtic fans gave in the aftermath as well as the engagement that has taken place with football clubs to prevent future incidents.
Although the vast majority of fans are well behaved, it is clear that, when a minority are not, there are wide-ranging implications. Governing bodies and individual clubs must consider what measures they can take and how they can use their influence to help to tackle misconduct.
The minister has already been quite strong in her condemnation of what happened, but does she agree that it is unacceptable that a major road junction in Glasgow was completely blocked to buses and other traffic? The Tron theatre had to cancel its performance that evening. Allegedly, four police officers were injured and the Glasgow royal infirmary accident and emergency department was completely swamped. I walked in the area at 6.30 on Saturday and I saw people urinating in pends and closes. Residents were afraid to leave their homes.
I agree 100 per cent with the member. It is absolutely unacceptable that businesses had to close, that public property was damaged, that people were not able to go about their business and, indeed, that people were injured. There is no reason why a celebration should degenerate into disorder, cause damage to property and result in loss of custom and business, as well as, of course, the cost to the public purse in terms of policing, the national health service response and the clean-up afterwards. Although I do not know the full cost yet for the council, I understand that last year’s clean-up cost amounted to more than £34,000. Police Scotland has confirmed that it will continue to work to identify those who are responsible to bring them to justice.
Looking ahead, does the minister agree that clubs need to get more involved in taking responsibility for their fans? Does she agree that consideration should be given to whether, for example, they should organise fan zones and whether they should be subject to strict liability, which could include partial stadium closures, points deductions and fines, as happens in Europe? Can she give any reassurance that the clubs will take responsibility for their fans’ behaviour this coming Saturday?
We will continue to work with football authorities, Police Scotland and fan groups to address the issues and ensure that football matches are an enjoyable experience for everyone during the game and afterwards.
We have never ruled out strict liability as an option for incidents at football within stadiums. However, our preferred solution has always been that the football authorities proactively shape and deliver a robust and meaningful solution to tackle any unacceptable conduct by a minority of supporters. I understand that Glasgow City Council has had discussions with clubs to discuss organised celebrations, and I fully encourage such dialogue between football clubs and local authorities about conducting safe events for their fans, which minimise the impact on the community.
I was struck by the stark contrast between Arsenal’s trophy parade and celebrations after winning the premiership in England, where the club worked in conjunction with Islington Council in London, and what happened in Glasgow. Celtic and Rangers Football Club both contribute around £250 million to the Scottish economy every year. They are two of the biggest sporting brands in the world. Will the Government convene a meeting of key stakeholders to build capability for this showcase event for Glasgow and build it as an annual celebration that we can be proud of instead of ashamed of?
First, I have been told that it was Manchester City that won down south.
Yes, I can confirm that we will endeavour to work with all authorities to ensure that such events are showcased.
Air ais
Business MotionAir adhart
Infected Blood Inquiry