³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

You have possibly touched on some of the things that I was going to say about the workforce and the importance of supporting the workforce. We have heard some concerns that workforce constraints could limit the bill’s implementation. Do you have any thoughts on that? Does anything additional need to happen so that the workforce can ensure that the bill’s provisions are realised?

Is that information publicly available?

On the options appraisal of the models that will apply after the UK bill comes into force, do you veer towards a voluntary model?

You have answered quite a lot of the questions that I was going to ask, so I will have a wee look at the scope of the proposals and the funding. Can you clarify why the proposed negotiating body will exclude children’s social care staff? Is there a particular reason for that?

That is a helpful clarification—thank you.

On funding, have you done any cost analysis of sectoral bargaining and fair work arrangements? Could we look at anything on that?

I am interested in the national service specification for substance use support services that the Government has committed to publishing. Is there any idea when that might happen? How will the impact of the service specification be monitored? What contribution will implementation of the service specification make to meeting the intended outcome of the bill?

The discussion is really helpful. The element of the barriers to trade unions is important, because there is no doubt that, in our regions, we come across employers who put up barriers to or bring up fears around care sector workers being active in the trade union movement, which is totally unacceptable. It is good to hear about that from witnesses such as you. We hope that people will approach us about anything that we can do to help.

My question relates to the agreement that seems to be in place but has not actually gone anywhere, which is frustrating. First, what are the barriers and what can our committee do to try to move that forward? Secondly, would getting the LCM through the Parliament nudge the agreement closer and allow us to get it done?

How would the use of such support services link with the bill, if it is passed?

My amendments in the group seek to strengthen the capacity of local authorities to assess rent conditions in their areas.

I have listened carefully to the debate, and I think that we share a common purpose with regard to the importance of data. The purpose of amendment 481 is to recognise that tenants are essential to verifying the accuracy of information that is provided by landlords to local authorities. The amendment would require local authorities to share information that is submitted by landlords with the tenants who are registered at the address. That would create a standardised process in which the tenants had the option to report information in their landlord’s submission that they thought might be false or incorrect. Landlords are required by law to inform tenants of any rent changes, so tenants are the only party that is able to verify that information.

Although I appreciate that that provision would add to the administrative burden that is faced by local authorities, the bill places a duty on them to investigate false information, and the only way to enforce that is with the participation of the tenant. Amendment 481 gives purpose to that duty in the bill.

Amendment 482 recognises that a well-regulated rented sector will be reliant on consistent information. The amendment therefore seeks to place on the Scottish ministers a duty to maintain the minimum categories of information that local authorities must report on, and not to reduce those. Each is essential to understanding rent increases against types of tenure and property. In future, the range of information that is sought might be expanded but it should never be reduced beyond the original categories. The amendment would safeguard consistency so that geographic areas are not evaluated by different criteria.

I have taken note of the minister’s points on those aspects and, like others, I hope that we will be able to discuss them further over the summer.

Amendments 483 to 486 seek to create standardised sets of notices that can be issued by a local authority where a landlord either fails to provide information or provides false information. The intention is to ensure the integrity of data collection by encouraging landlords to fulfil their responsibility to report accurately.

Specifically, amendments 483 and 484 seek to instruct a local authority to initiate proceedings if a landlord does not provide any information when requested. There is also a duty to re-seek missing information and initiate a recurring penalty fine until the information has been submitted. Amendments 485 and 486 would create a similar mandatory requirement for a local authority to initiate First-tier Tribunal proceedings in the circumstances in which information that is provided is suspected to be false.

We can agree on the importance of accurate data, and that is why it is important that some of what the amendments seek to require is included in the final bill. However, I intend to take the cabinet secretary up on her offer and seek further discussion.

Given what the minister said, I will not move amendment 480 but I will seek to bring it back at stage 3 after understanding what the barriers are.

Amendment 480 not moved.