���˿���

I think that the education committee is, because I am on it.

I have never thought of that suggestion, but it is quite a good one. It could be exactly the same people, because you want to include in the questioning and scrutiny of the legislation not just the knowledge that has been gleaned through the pre-legislative scrutiny, but the knowledge from your other inquiries. You could have exactly the same membership but call it something different on the particular day that you are scrutinising legislation. I think that that suggestion could work, so I am sympathetic to it.

My only other point is that I am interested in the non-Government majority, which I think would force Opposition members to behave differently on a committee. We would know that how we voted would affect the outcome of the vote; we would not sit in isolation knowing that our voting a certain way would have no effect on the outcome. With a non-Government majority, the balance of responsibility shifts.

When it comes to legislation, if the Government is unhappy with something that has come forward, it can always clear things up at stage 3 in the chamber. A non-Government majority could force greater collaboration between Opposition and Government. For instance, since the Greens have left government, the Parliament has changed—ministers are much more engaging, and you can see them working the chamber and the tea rooms now. Not having that majority forces ministers to look outwards; it might be the same for committees.

I agree. When I was leader of my party, I did not sit on committees for 10 years, although, initially, I sat on the committee that examined the bill that would implement the Calman powers. Committee participation was an untapped world for me, and I have since enjoyed it. For the reasons that Douglas Ross has set out, I have enjoyed the education, committee, because I have been able to get into a level of detail that I would never be able to in the chamber, and witnesses who attend the committee know an awful lot of stuff. You can gain tremendous knowledge by listening to them, reading the briefings and learning from SPICe, which helps with the rest of your work. I think that committee participation should be emphasised at the start of the session.

Secondly, I am in favour of smaller committees, although there is an issue of proportionality. If committees are smaller, we need to recognise that the very small parties cannot be cut out altogether. We need to have proportional representation across committees. Smaller committees would be more agile and nimble and could get under the bonnet of important issues.

Thirdly, I was in the House of Commons for four years and, for a period of that time, I sat on the Defence Committee. That was a select committee rather than a standing committee for legislation. Labour had a majority Government at the time, but Labour members left their rosettes at the door, so we were able to give ministers a really hard time. As I understand it, their whips did not put pressure on them for doing so, because they regarded it as their job.

That separation between scrutiny of legislation and scrutiny of accountability is a benefit of the Westminster system—I know that we cannot do that here. It is about getting it into members’ minds that they have two separate functions. When we scrutinise legislation, we know that, from a Government perspective, the legislation must get through, and it is the members’ job to vote it through. However, when it comes to the scrutiny of bodies and ministers, members need to act differently, so it is important for them to have two committee functions and roles in their heads.

When I am in committee, I ask questions that I might not agree with. We have been working on the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, and I have been asking tough questions on both sides because I think that it is important to uncover the facts. I will come to a different conclusion at the end—I will not be a Liberal and pick both options; I will pick one side. However, it is important that, when we are going through the initial phase, we interrogate robustly.

Of course, from time to time, everybody plays the political role more than the scrutiny role—that happens with all parties, not just Opposition parties. However, I hope that other members of the committee see the benefit of members who are prepared to get to the facts rather than just take a party position.

The particular format that I like is getting witnesses here who might have a debate between themselves. We often get uniform panels of witnesses who are all from one part of the sector and who all say roughly the same thing, but I want to see how they test their arguments against each other. Some of the most productive sessions have been those in which they have done just that.

Some witnesses do not want to do that, because they do not want to be in the same room as somebody they disagree with. However, it is in our interest to see that exchange so that, rather than them relying on us to ask the questions, we are almost getting them to ask the questions of each other, which is of particular value.

That goes back to the role of the clerks and SPICe, and to the independence of the members. It is about how much control members will take over their committee and how much they will be led by the professionals. Those professionals know a hell of a lot, and we need to draw on that experience, but we also need to own the committee. Too often, I feel as though the standard questions to ask are just accepted and that the witnesses and the report that is produced are, likewise, just accepted. Members need to take control of the committee, otherwise it is not their committee.

One thing that I have learned from this process is that Graham Simpson is an excellent spokesperson. If he does not become an MSP again, he will get employment from me. [Laughter.] I thank him for explaining my amendments.

It is normal practice for landlords to invest at the point of a changeover in a tenancy. I do not want us to get to a position in which landlords decide not to invest in properties because they will not get a return on that investment, which will cause a decrease in the quality of accommodation and a lack of investment in the sector. However, I am pleased that the cabinet secretary accepts the principle at the heart of what I am trying to say. It is now on the record that she has said that, and I hope that my point is reflected in the consultation responses, the eventual response from the Government and the generation of the regulations.

It may be that there are exemptions that cover not only the periods between tenancies but all times when investment is made by the landlord in the property so that they are able to get a return on that investment. That way, we can encourage the improvement of properties rather than the opposite.

On that basis, I will not press amendment 29.

Amendment 29, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 332 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville].

Amendment 332A moved—[Maggie Chapman].

The purpose of my amendments is to drive investment and build confidence in the housing sector. My amendments 29 to 46 give two options. The first is to remove between-tenancy rent controls altogether. The second is an alternative to the first option, which would prevent rent control measures from applying between tenancies when work has been carried out on a property. I seek to do that by modifying the subsection that determines whether a property is the same or substantially the same as a property that was let under a previous tenancy by adding the qualification that that should be determined with reference to

“the extent to which the let property has been decorated or renovated since the point at which the previous tenancy ended.”

As I said, we are trying to drive investment and build confidence, but we are also trying to prevent poor maintenance and investment in properties, which could prevent lower rents in some tenancies from rising up to the market level in advance of the introduction of this piece of legislation. If they do not, they will not be able to keep pace with the market value in future. There is a danger that that, together with some other measures, might result in landlords leaving or investors moving away from the sector.

Many other countries that have rent controls have different arrangements for the period between tenancies. My options simply go with some of the international best practice in that area.

I move amendment 29.

Your experience of the system is important. You are not irrelevant in the system. You are saying that you do not see that lack of leadership at your level, so—

Withers referenced finance, but the main thing—as Audit Scotland said—is leadership. Have you experienced any of that lack of leadership and coherence across the system?

So you are looking for financial change, not structural change.