I wonder where the cabinet secretary can point me to that allows landlords to ascertain whether their proposed tenants have behaved antisocially in the past. My amendment suggests that landlords need to know that. I cannot find that information.

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a landlord in Moray. I let houses under private residential tenancies and I let tied properties. I have been letting houses for 30 years, and I am a qualified surveyor. I was also letting houses for people—[Interruption.]

I am sorry, cabinet secretary, but I cannot.

I do not think that the bill strikes the right balance between getting it right for tenants and incentivising landlords to make their properties better and to invest in them in the future. They will have a huge amount to do to reach net zero, but this bill will put them off.

Absolute nonsense.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Sorry—I could not get my device to connect. I would have voted no.

Do I have time, Presiding Officer?

I have struggled with this housing bill because I have wanted to engage with it, but every time I have tried to engage, it has proved difficult.

At the stage 2 amendment stage, the relevant committee met on the same day as the committee that I am on, so I was unable to attend most meetings, although I managed to attend on a few occasions to try to speak to some amendments. However, the amendments that I did manage to lodge and that were debated and agreed on at the committee stage were promptly reversed when it came to stage 3. That is really hard to take when a member has worked hard on a bill.

I have also found it hard to be in the chamber and hear, in line with a point that Willie Rennie made, all landlords of rented accommodation being tarred with the same brush. I am not embarrassed to say that I am a landlord and that I provide good-quality houses for long-term homes—I do not do short-term lets. During the course of this meeting, we have heard landlords being described as “wolves” of the private sector, being accused of a lack of concern and being said to weasel their way out of things. We have heard about grotesque and ludicrous rents, but that is not something that I recognise in the sector that I have worked in for 30 years. In 99 per cent of cases, landlords want to provide a home and to have a long-term relationship with their tenants, because those relationships make it easier for everyone. They allow the house to be well looked after and the landlord and tenant to come to an agreement on areas where there may be issues. I am bitterly disappointed when I hear that sort of language about landlords being used in the Parliament.

I remind Ms Chapman, the member who used that language and who is here, that there are something like 300,000 private rented properties across Scotland. However she might view landlords, they help by providing homes for individuals who cannot afford to buy their own homes. This Parliament has made legislation in the past about rent increases, and I think that that has worked in most cases.

I must also allude to the fact that I lodged 69 amendments during the course of stage 3. I did that because I thought that they were necessary, so to hear comments about them being unnecessary, not appropriate or not the right approach to take, and to hear others say that they “cannot commit today” or “might talk later” or that they “support the principle” but cannot agree to the amendment actually makes a mockery of the process. I am in the chamber to try to make the bill better, but I do not think that I have managed to do that in any shape or form.

I say to the cabinet secretary that she should remember the results of a survey carried out recently by Safe Deposits Scotland and published while we were here this afternoon. That survey found that 33 per cent of landlords want to get out of letting properties—that is 100,000 houses that would be taken out of the rented sector. Some in the chamber would argue that those would become homes that people would be able to buy, but only 62 per cent of those homes would go into private ownership and not all would be affordable for the people who need to rent properties.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to take interventions if I am allowed to, but it is somewhat difficult for me as my hearing aids have run out of battery power and I am struggling to hear whether members want to intervene. I will get through this as quickly as possible, because I know that time is against me.

The amendment would allow the Government to make provision on amending an entry and enforcement of the register.

Members may wonder whether such a register would be fair. I think that it would be, because landlords have to be registered. Under Government legislation, they have to renew their registration every three years, and they can be removed from the register if they are not regarded as a suitable landlord. If they cannot prove that they are a suitable landlord and they are removed, they cannot advertise the property and then they cannot let it. There are severe restrictions on landlords. I welcome those, because they weed out those who are not good landlords. However, it is only fair that, if we are controlling landlords, a register is kept so that everyone knows the tenants that they are taking on and whether they are going to come with problems.

That is the premise of my amendment. I would be delighted to hear the cabinet secretary’s reasons why she is supporting it.

I move amendment 257.

I listened to the cabinet secretary’s intervention, in which she said that “some of the information” should be available. However, she gave me no indication of where that could be found. I do not think that my amendment seeks in any way to prevent people from getting houses. It would just allow people to understand which tenants are moving in, in the same way that the tenant has an absolute right to know what sort of landlord they are getting—that is, that he or she is a fit and proper person because they are on the landlord register.

I am disappointed that the Government is not going to support amendment 257. I worded it carefully and am glad that the cabinet secretary did not say that it was poorly worded. I worded it to give Scottish ministers the ability to amend how the register would be kept and it asks them only to keep a register.

I will press the amendment and I thank the cabinet secretary for giving me half an answer to my questions.