logo
Scot Gov slammed for 'shameful' drop of winter eviction ban

Scot Gov slammed for 'shameful' drop of winter eviction ban

The aim of the amendment was to prevent people from being made homeless during the harshest, coldest months of the year where weather conditions can often be life-threatening.
However, during considerations of amendments on the bill, MSPs decided not to include this clause.
Reacting to the vote, Maggie Chapman has said this risks making more people homeless.
The Scottish Greens MSP said: 'It is shameful that the Scottish Government has voted against a winter evictions ban. While we may be approaching summer with the coldest months ahead far from our minds, for people at risk of homelessness, the threat of a winter without a roof over their heads is real and fast approaching.
'Every winter, too many people and families are kicked out of their homes, sometimes for unwarranted reasons by landlords who don't take their obligations seriously.
'We live in an era of sky-rocketing rents, high utility bills and low wages that don't keep pace. The cost of living crisis is still very much with us. Renters need protections just as much as they did when inflation was at its height.
'But instead of giving renters more rights, the Scottish Government has made it clear that it is on the side of landlords. It has favoured the wealthy over working people, which will only serve to deepen inequality and put more people at risk of homelessness.
'I will bring these important protections back at Stage 3 of the Bill, giving the Government and opposition parties the chance to protect people and their families facing crisis, and help to ease the ongoing housing emergency in Scotland.'
Living Rent said the decision was one which showed the Scottish Government is siding with landlords "at the expense of tenants".
Aditi Jehangir, from Living Rent said: "All evictions are stressful and scary. And during winter, when tenants struggle to heat their homes, when it's cold outside, and the festive season is ramping up, evictions are particularly cruel. In the middle of a housing emergency, evictions are a sure promise of growing homelessness.
"To vote against greater protections for tenants during the harshest months of the year is a vote against protecting the most vulnerable. It's a vote that protects landlords. The Scottish government is siding with them at the expense of tenants.
This is just part of a wider move to strip the Housing Bill of any meaningful and significant protections for tenants during a devastating housing crisis. It does not bode well ahead of a Holyrood election where housing will play a deciding role and where clear and effective changes are crucial."
Ministers have said the consultation on the Housing bill indicated there were other times which present major financial and emotional pressure - not just the winter months.
They added that measures included in the housing bill mean that a court or tribunal will consider if there should be a delay to an eviction and seasonal impact could be taken into consideration.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Scotland provides renters with some of the strongest protections from eviction anywhere in the UK.
'We explored greater restrictions on evictions during the winter period as part of our new deal for tenants. Consultation indicated that there are other times of the year which present major financial and emotional pressures for people.
'The measures in the Housing Bill ensure that the tribunal or court will consider whether there should be a delay to the enforcement of an eviction at any time of year, although seasonal impact is a specific factor to be taken into account. This approach will give greater protection for tenants throughout the year.'
The Housing Bill is currently at Stage 2 after it was introduced by the Scottish Government last year.
It covers protections for tenants, preventing homelessness, and other housing matters.
Earlier this month, the Scottish Parliament's Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee voted to force the Scottish Government to include student tenancies in its planned rent control legislation.
Cross-party MSPs backed amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill that would extend rent control powers to include student accommodation – both purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) and university-owned halls.
The bill also includes rights such as for private and social housing tenants to request to keep a pet and for private housing tenants to make changes to the property they are renting.
It also includes changes to other matters affecting tenants such as allowing a single joint tenant to end a joint tenancy.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Fund Winter Fuel Payments with MP expenses cut says petition
Fund Winter Fuel Payments with MP expenses cut says petition

South Wales Argus

time42 minutes ago

  • South Wales Argus

Fund Winter Fuel Payments with MP expenses cut says petition

The petition was started by Yvonne Keegan, who calls for the benefit to be reinstated: "I know first hand the importance of Winter Fuel Payment - it's a lifeline to pensioners during the harsh winter months. Their heating bills can skyrocket, and they end up struggling, trying desperately to keep themselves warm. "Meanwhile, our politicians are living comfortably with expenses that would be considered extravagant by most standards. We believe that our politicians – who have a stable income, can afford to pay their heating bills and do not need taxpayer-funded expenses to support this aspect of their lifestyle." Once a petition reaches 10,000 signatures, the Government responds, and if 100,000 people sign, a debate in Parliament is considered. This petition currently has 110,421 signatures. Signatures can still be added here. How much do MPs get paid? MPs' basic salary rose 2.8% to £93,904 from April, after Parliament's expenses watchdog linked it to wider proposals for the public sector. They can also claim expenses including: Office expenses Office running costs Staffing costs Travel for staff Centrally purchased stationery Postage costs Central IT costs Communications allowance They also receive allowances towards having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency. MPs can claim their utility bills, including gas, electricity, other fuel and water bills, on expenses at a single property, either in London or their constituency. This is only available to those who aren't MPs in London, or don't occupy 'grace and favour' accommodation in London. There is no upper limit on how much MPs can claim back on heating and fuel costs. Which pensioners will receive Winter Fuel payments after the changes? The Government has said more pensioners will receive winter fuel payments, but payments will not be universal. Chancellor Rachel Reeves told reporters that 'more people will get winter fuel payment this winter', adding that further details will be announced 'as soon as we possibly can'. She said: 'People should be in no doubt that the means test will increase and more people will get winter fuel payment this winter.' My instant response to Winter Fuel Payment news & key message to the Chancellor (I heard while walking to the office, so pls forgive the fact it was done there and then for speed) — Martin Lewis (@MartinSLewis) June 4, 2025 Pensions minister Torsten Bell told MPs that, while more pensioners will be eligible, there is no prospect of returning to universal winter fuel payments. Speaking to the Work and Pensions Committee, Mr Bell said: 'Directly on your question of is there any prospect of a universal winter fuel payment, the answer is no, the principle I think most people, 95% of people, agree, that it's not a good idea that we have a system paying a few hundreds of pounds to millionaires, and so we're not going to be continuing with that. 'But we will be looking at making more pensioners eligible.' (Image: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire) The decision to means-test the previously universal payment was one of the first announcements by Chancellor Rachel Reeves after Labour's landslide election victory last year, and it has been widely blamed for the party's collapse in support. The Government has insisted the policy was necessary to help stabilise the public finances, allowing the improvements in the economic picture which Sir Keir said could result in the partial reversal of the measure. Pension Credit is currently the primary benefit by which pensioners can receive the winter fuel payment. The credit tops up incomes for poorer pensioners and acts as a gateway to additional support, including the winter fuel payment. Recommended reading: What were the cuts to winter fuel payments, and who currently receives them? On July 29 2024, the Government announced that from winter 2024, winter fuel payments would be dependent on receiving another means-tested benefit, as part of measures to fill a 'black hole' in the public finances. This meant the number of pensioners receiving the payment was reduced by around 10 million, from 11.4 million to 1.5 million. Asked what groups who are currently missing out on winter fuel payments he would like to include again, if possible, Mr Bell told the committee: 'We are committed to the principle that there should be some means-testing and that those on the highest incomes shouldn't be receiving winter fuel payments in the context of wider decisions we have to make – and fairness is an important part of that. 'You can then take from that that my priority is those who are on lower incomes but have missed out.'

Clyde Metro possible routes and cost known by 2027
Clyde Metro possible routes and cost known by 2027

Glasgow Times

time42 minutes ago

  • Glasgow Times

Clyde Metro possible routes and cost known by 2027

Consultants are currently developing a case for investment which is seen as an 'essential' step towards providing a 'mass transit' system. Glasgow Labour has claimed the Metro scheme is a 'stalled plan dressed up as progress' — with no start date and no funding committed. READ NEXT:Glasgow's drug consumption centre is working says health secretary Transport spokesman Cllr Saqib Ahmed said: 'Clyde Metro should be Glasgow's next great infrastructure revolution — but right now, it's just another SNP soundbite.' A spokesman for the city's SNP group said the cross-party Glasgow City Region cabinet has allocated £12m to advance the business case, which Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) is progressing. 'That's a considerable amount of spend and effort for a soundbite,' he added. The funding, which will support the development of the case for investment (CFI), is from the City Deal, a more than £1bn infrastructure programme funded by both the UK and Scottish governments. Council officials have said the CFI will identify the funding strategy for 'subsequent stages of the Clyde Metro programme'. READ NEXT:'Don't blame us': Taxis hit back in Glasgow city centre transport row They also said 'one of the key objectives is to improve the sustainable transport access to Glasgow Airport' and this will 'continue to feature as a key priority in all the options we are exploring.' At a council meeting on Tuesday, Cllr Kieran Turner, Labour, asked whether there would be potential routes and costs at the end of the CFI process. An official said: 'Yes, absolutely. At the moment, as part of the initial engagement, we have four network options which were presented. 'Those network options will then get synthesised into a preferred network.' The process will involve deciding on which modes of transport will be included, such as heavy rail or tram, as well as a recommendation on 'what the first move needs to be'. Cllr Turner added: 'Until people start to see something that is a little more concrete, even in terms of option selection, there are still going to be questions in our constituents' minds around if any of this is ever going to happen. 'Is lots of money just getting spent on consultants? And will anything come of this?' The official said there will be answers at the end of the case for investment, including potential timelines. It will be 'absolutely critical' for securing 'a commitment from government to give funding', he said. Public consultation on the project could be held in spring or summer next year. After the meeting, Cllr Ahmed said: 'Communities have waited too long for transformation. Instead, they've been left behind by a government more focused on branding than building. 'Glasgow Labour will keep fighting for real investment in our transport network.' Labour want a commitment from the Scottish Government to fund phase one of the Metro project and a 'clear, costed and deliverable' construction timeline. The SNP spokesman said Clyde Metro is 'an agreed national transport priority'. 'Labour's failure to deliver the type of modern transport system developed by our peers during their time in power in Glasgow is why we have decades of missed opportunities to catch up on. 'If Labour councillors want to start being constructive perhaps they can insist from their party colleagues that we received a share of the £15bn the Chancellor is allocating to English cities for major transport projects.'

Increasing UK defence spending is worst way to support jobs
Increasing UK defence spending is worst way to support jobs

The National

timean hour ago

  • The National

Increasing UK defence spending is worst way to support jobs

THERE are many reasons to oppose the UK Government's push towards increased militarism in an already unstable and increasingly violent world. Adding more bombs – especially nuclear bombs – to the mix is not going to improve matters. The only thing that ever has, has been years and decades longs work by diplomats to de-escalate tensions and to build peace. As Master Yoda once said on being accused of being a 'great warrior', 'wars not make one great'. READ MORE: Douglas Ross accused of 'bullying witnesses' in key Holyrood committee By far the worst reason to support the extra spending is the usual 'enemy-at-the-gates' emotional fearmongering that proponents usually cast about when they want more money for more bombs but the second worst is the claim that such spending will 'support jobs and the economy'. I'm going to make the case that spending the same amount of money on just about anything else would do more good for the UK and Scottish economies. The scale of the UK's proposed militaristic expansion is vast. We don't yet know how much extra they plan to spend but an increase from the current 2.3% of GDP to 3% (the minimum required to finance the proposed fleet of new submarines and nuclear-armed fighter jets) would cost around £20 billion more than is currently being spent every year. Increasing spending to match Donald Trump's demand that the UK spends 5% of GDP would cost £80 billion a year. Bear in mind that this is on top of the UK's already proportionately massive spending on military matters – it's instructive to note that the UK spends more per capita on nuclear weapons alone than any nuclear-armed nation other than the USA and Israel at around £90 per person per year (that's more than I spend on my mobile phone SIM contract!). Trump isn't likely to get his wish of Britain spending 5% of GDP – that's about as much as was being spent during the Falklands War when Britain's GDP was less than half the size is currently is – and it's not a commitment that the UK have made quite yet so we should only talk about that £20 billion increase for now. What do we actually get for that? In economic terms, the material assets are useless. The nuclear submarines and nuclear armed jets don't themselves produce anything or add value to the economy in the way that a factory might. If they're ever used, they have a negative economic value but Britain rarely counts the cost of its wars as applied to the people we're bombing or supporting others to bomb. Even if they're not used, they are likely to have a negative economic impact on Scotland. Military spending is exempt from the Barnett Consequentials that decide the Block Grants given to devolved governments so if the spending comes not from increased taxes (ruled out by Rachel Reeves) or from increased borrowing (ruled out by Rachel Reeves) but from cuts to Barnett spending like education, social security or something similar then that will mean cuts to Holyrood which is far less able to compensate via borrowing or increased taxes. This will have a devasting impact on public services unlikely to be compensated for even by the few jobs that will be 'created or sustained' in Scotland (a number that will likely go up and down in its estimate in line with pro-independence polling, as such UK-backed jobs so often do). How many jobs are we talking? The Government estimates that the £20 billion will buy 31,000 jobs. How many in Scotland? Unknown, but 20,000 of those jobs have been announced for the submarine programme to be based in Barrow-on-Furnace, 9,000 will be dedicated to building new nuclear warheads – most of which will be based in Aldermaston and the remaining 2,000 will be split across '6 munition factories' of which an unknown number may or may not be based in Scotland. £20 billion for 31,000 jobs is £645,161 per job, per year. That £20 billion per year would support far more jobs if it was directed to civilian research and engineering as it would go on to boost the economy further through 'economic multipliers' and the inventions and technology that would come out of that research. It's estimated that every £1 of public spending on civilian healthcare research, for instance, returns at least £2 to the economy whereas defence spending usually breaks about even – less so if the spending comes at the cost of public spending elsewhere. Given that the weapons are economically useless if they're not used and economically negative if they are used, then if the goal is supporting jobs it'd be more effective to pay each of those engineers £645,161 every year to stand by the side of the road and wave at traffic – at least they'd go on to spend that money supporting jobs in the wider economy instead of it sitting there in a bomb waiting to blow up someone else's economy, house and family. Less flippantly, we could give every single person in the UK a £300 end-of-year bonus for the same price – not quite a sustainable Universal Basic Income but that would become a very valuable economic stimulus package on the scale of the similar dividend that residents of Alaska receive every year. There may be legitimate reasons to invest in military spending but stop trying to either frighten us or bribe us into accepting the illegitimate ones instead. Simply put, if your goal is 'jobs' then don't invest in 'defence'. Invest in just about anything else. Maybe even invest in peace. Then you won't need the bombs at all.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store