A lot of the confusion over amendments in group 12 would have been clarified if we had known what category 1 and category 2 changes were. The business and regulatory impact assessment gave some idea that category 1 would include simple things such as putting up pictures and posters, and that category 2 might include the painting of walls. From a personal point of view, if a tenant moves in and wants to make the property their home, I would normally expect them to put up things such as pictures and posters; I would be surprised if they were not able to do so. Category 2 changes such as the painting of rooms, if that is what is involved, should be agreed with the landlord in advance.

Amendments 208, 209 and 211 would require notices between the landlord and tenant regarding category 2 changes to be sent in writing and by recorded delivery. I know that the cabinet secretary does not accept my opinion, but I am trying to ensure that there is no confusion at a later date and that any proposed changes do not set the landlord against the tenant. There is nothing worse than that happening when somebody is trying to move out of their home to a different property.

Amendment 210 proposes that a tenant must return any category 2 changes to their original state. To me, that would seem perfectly sensible if category 2 changes include things such as painting. I have seen lots of properties where the landlord may not recognise the colour scheme that a tenant has used as a nice one. Most landlords will go with a bland colour so that a tenant can move in and find the colour acceptable, but I have seen tenants use bright purples or fluorescent pinks with blue stars on them.

I will come to that specific point, if I may. I know that the member kept an eagle eye on the various amendments that were lodged and will have seen my proposed amendment 399, which was not selected by the Presiding Officer. I lodged the manuscript amendment because I received a letter from the cabinet secretary 47 minutes after the lodging deadline to say that I was being discriminatory against disabled people by not allowing category 1 changes for disabled access. I never wanted to do that. I lodged my manuscript amendment so that it would be entirely clear that I believe that the bill should allow disabled people to put in anything that they want to in order to make their lives easier, provided that it does not require structural changes. As Ms Chapman will know, in most cases, structural changes would require a building warrant. I am disappointed that I was not able to clarify that. I think that a lot of the disagreement between the cabinet secretary and me stemmed from the fact that it is not clear what are classified as category 1 and category 2 changes.

I will speak briefly to the other amendments in the group. Maggie Chapman’s amendment 94 seeks to change the number of days’ notice that the tenant is required to provide to the landlord from 42 days to 30 days. I think that 42 days is the right length of time, for the reasons that the cabinet secretary noted earlier.

I am disappointed by amendments 95, 96, 98 and 99, because they will change the wording that the committee agreed to in amendments that I lodged at stage 2, which will mean that ministers “may” instead of “must” specify changes. That is disappointing, as it overrides the committee’s discussion. Amendments 212 and 213 do the same thing. I remind people about the manuscript amendment.

Maggie Chapman’s amendment 38 proposes that tenants may make changes to properties if those changes promote nature recovery. I absolutely understand why that might be appropriate. For example, tenants may want to change their garden into a vegetable garden, but if the existing garden is established and it already has trees and plants that improve the amenity of the property, they should need to negotiate those changes with the landlord, rather than having an automatic right to go ahead.

I will leave it there and will listen to the arguments that are made. I believe that I will also get a chance to sum up.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I seek your guidance. I am finding the process fairly difficult in the sense that, in the previous group, I had nine amendments and was allowed to speak for five minutes, which meant that I had only 33 seconds to speak to each amendment. In group 11, I will have 14 amendments, which gives me 21 seconds to push and give reasons for each—[Interruption.] The First Minister seems to think that that is more than sufficient, given his comments, but I think that it is a genuine point. We are here to make good legislation, and I find it really difficult to put forward an argument in 21 seconds for each of my amendments, and it gives me no chance to speak to other amendments in the group.

I have 50 per cent of the amendments in group 11, yet I will have less than 50 per cent of the time to speak in it. I wonder whether there is some leeway with the time, Presiding Officer. I do not want to string this out for any longer than is necessary, but I think that 21 seconds is just too little for each amendment.

It would be interesting if a tenancy was not allowed to be ended within the first 12 months. Should Maggie Chapman’s amendment also refer to the tenant, not just the landlord, not being able to end a tenancy within the first 12 months? That would seem to be equitable and fair. Does Maggie Chapman have a view on that?

I mean that I would have voted yes—I was confused for a second. I assume that we can correct the division list.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I continue to have problems with my app. I would have voted no.

The point of these amendments is to ensure that unclaimed deposits are used properly and are not allowed to sit and fritter away.

I will give just a little bit of information. Members might be surprised to learn that, in November 2024, 23,123 unclaimed deposits were sitting with SafeDeposits Scotland, with a total value of £6,310,182. SafeDeposits Scotland is getting the interest, which I assume means that it is getting about £300,000 a year. That is the sort of money that is sitting there and that the Government, through some of its amendments, wants to use to inform tenants in private tenancies about the obligations and the bill. I do not want to do that. The money should be used to increase and improve the standard of social housing. We should allow the people who are renting in that sector to benefit from that £6 million pot, and my amendments 223, 224, 225 and 227 are all technical amendments to allow that to happen. I believe that they should get the Parliament’s support, and I will be surprised if they do not.

I listened to Maggie Chapman’s point on amendment 45. Sadly, she bases all her decisions on rents in urban areas. Rents in rural areas are much lower and could be as low as £700 a month. Two months’ rent would be £1,400, which, in my mind and experience, would allow for just one room in one house to be repainted and recarpeted if there is any damage at the end of a tenancy. That seems entirely reasonable. If the amendment had been shifted round to suggest that the deposit should be a percentage at higher rents rather than catching all the lower rents, that would have made sense.

Ross Greer’s amendments are interesting—I had not looked at the issue from the point of view that he set out. I will be interested to hear what the cabinet secretary says in response.

I strongly agree with Mr Griffin’s amendments. Other things are sometimes included in the rent figure, such as private water supplies and private sewerage, that are not the rent for the house. Those charges are probably equivalent to what Scottish Water would charge, which we are told is so reasonable, for the disposal of waste.

I am interested to hear what the cabinet secretary says. I am sure that the Parliament will support my amendments, which would ensure that money goes into social housing, where it should be spent.

With amendments 233, 234 and 235, I am proposing that a non-related carer should be unable to inherit the tenancy. I absolutely agree that related carers should have that right, but I am not sure that I believe that non-related carers should. Amendment 232 is a technical amendment. I will be interested to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say about those amendments.

Katy Clark’s amendment 293 is an interesting amendment, and I would be interested to hear what the cabinet secretary makes of it. It is a good problem for us to be airing.

With regard to amendment 302, I think that six months is quite a long period, given that three months is where we are at at the moment. I would be interested to hear Mr Griffin’s rationale for that.

I think that Mr Whitfield is saying that that is his house. I have not been to your house, Mr Whitfield.

All that I am trying to suggest is that, at the end of a tenancy, the property should be returned to the landlord in the state that it was in at the beginning.

I seek clarity from the cabinet secretary on the definition of structural change. Structural change means one thing to me as a surveyor; it might mean something different to her. I would like to know what she means by structural change.