���˿���

Does the industry need a wider view to be taken in marine planning? Presumably, marine planning could be very helpful for fisheries if it is done in the right way and with a broader view rather than in a way that, as you say, squeezes fisheries.

That is helpful.

Most of my amendments in the group seek to require data that the bill currently allows local authorities to request. Amendments 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 to 20 would make the change at various points where there are references to a local authority being able to request data to require that the data be provided.

Amendment 8 would allow local authorities to make changes to the information that a landlord must provide and to ask landlords for information beyond what is listed in the bill, in line with ministers’ guidance. I feel that that is important to allow the local context to be taken into account.

Amendments 5 and 9 would change the limit for providing data from 28 days from it being asked for by a local authority to 28 days from entry in the landlord register, and it would allow the local authority to refer to the First-tier Tribunal when that requirement was not met. I feel that that is important in providing certainty around landlords, which has been discussed, and making very clear the expectations when somebody takes up that role.

Amendment 137 would increase the penalty for a landlord not providing information from £1,000 to £10,000. I lodged the amendment because £1,000, especially when it is a small part of a set monthly rent, might be seen as a fee worth paying to get out of providing other information. Refusing to provide what is agreed to be reasonable information should incur a higher fine.

I believe that it is entirely reasonable to make use of existing processes to ensure that we have sight of rent levels and other information that councils are already allowed to nag landlords for. The Government’s amendments represent progress, but they do not provide for that cross-cutting data on current rent levels. The lack of data on current rents and the complexity of trying to tie together the data that we have and the Government justifying policy progress through data that was scraped from Zoopla can make even the best policy impossible to implement well or even at all. That has long been a sincere frustration to me, and my lodging the amendments came from a place of wanting to fill those gaps and bring truth to future debates on the private rented sector.

We do not need to sit and argue with one other, as we often do in this committee, about whether anecdotes, whichever side they come from, are representative of a wider situation. We do not need to wonder whether rent levels that are set for those who have been in situ for a long time are below, above or at the market rate.

Allowing local authorities to request data piece by piece will never give us a broad view. Even if local authorities make regular use of that power, they will be building a skewed picture, because they are asking landlords for the data for a reason. We will still not know what is happening in rentals that are generally unproblematic and are not changing hands. That impacts everything from evidence bases for bringing in rent controls to the definition of “market value”.

During my time on the committee, I have heard a broad range of witnesses speak to the urgency and necessity of having better data. Citizens Advice Scotland said:

“we need better data collection for ... policy making.”

Generation Rent said that,

“Without good local-level rent data, it is hard to know what effect the measures that the Scottish Government”

has already brought in

“are having on the local market”.

Scottish Land & Estates agrees that

“good data underpins good legislation”,

and it added:

“we would like to be in a position where the data underpinning the bill is as clear as possible for both landlords and tenants.”

We also got interesting evidence from Robin Blacklock, who said:

“Rent pressure zones did not work because we did not collect the data. If we do nothing else under the bill but set up data collection, it will be a success.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 28 January 2025; c 8, 19, 36, 37.]

It is therefore clear to me that better data collection is vital. It is sensible, as it will uncover those situations to which the likes of Scottish Land & Estates want attention to be paid, which involve landlords who have not put in the effort to protect their long-term rural residents or have not raised rents over many years. It will prove or disprove whether rent levels are exorbitant. If we are to be able to review the impact of the legislation and ensure that future changes to policy are reactive and appropriate, we need to rely on strong data.

I appreciate that some stakeholders have outlined cost issues with my suggested approach while remaining supportive of the idea in principle. I want to be clear that I am not dead set on the information being collected by the local authority, on all the information being in a standard form or on a set interval being used. I do not want to make things harder for local authorities or for landlords, but we need to have the data on what current rent levels are.

I am glad to hear about the summer engagement and will be happy to take part in that. I would be happy to look again at my amendments on the basis that we are working to introduce provisions at stage 3 that will allow a more cross-cutting view to be taken of rent levels. However, I will lodge amendments at stage 3 if the Government does not do so. I am disappointed that my discussions with the minister, which were initially positive, have not resulted in the progress that I hoped for. I do not consider that the Government’s amendments go far enough, because they will not enable us to find out what current rent levels are, and we should know that.

As I said, Robin Blacklock told the committee that, if we do nothing else but collect better data, the bill will be a success. I want the bill to be a success, so let us make it a success, build a solid evidence base and stop guessing.

Why is it the case that it is not onerous for a local authority to request such information from a landlord at any time, and for the landlord to have 28 days to respond, yet it is onerous to make it clear to all landlords that, once they register, they will be expected to provide such data?

At the moment, the process for filling a vacancy on the regional list is very different. Both the party and the person who was next on the list would have to produce a certificate to say that they were happy that that person was the candidate. Is it clear whether the bill as drafted completely circumvents the need for a nominating officer certificate? Could we be in a position in which a region-wide ballot is held and the recalled MSP supported but the party does not produce a certificate and that person is not re-elected?

That is interesting. Thank you. We had some discussion with the previous panel of witnesses comparing what happens currently with vacancies on a regional list with what would happen in the case of a recall. Normally, a written statement would be needed from the candidate to say that they wished to take up the seat, along with the party’s certificate of nomination. Malcolm Burr suggested that the way to simplify that process would be to require by provision that a party must produce that certificate if a recalled MSP was supported in a regional poll. What is your view on that?

They might not be a member of the party.

Fair enough.

Finally, from an education perspective, I wonder how easy it would be for people to understand what they were looking at in a regional poll. In a constituency recall election, the recalled MSP could well be standing as an independent or for a different party from their original party. However, with a regional ballot, where the choice would be between that candidate and somebody else who was unnamed, it would all become very party specific. Do you think that people would understand that, if a Conservative regional member was involved, they would not be voting against the Conservatives but would be voting for that person or for someone else?

We can see that, in the case of somebody being recalled, it is very likely that there would be questions about whether they have fallen out with certain people or whether the party really wants them to be a representative. Given that the electorate would have made what Malcolm Burr called a “positive choice”, it seems that requiring the party to certify the person is the right way to go, but would that bring the party’s rights into question?