I have listened to the arguments that have been put forward and I could go through all the reasons why I do not agree with them. I do not think that the cabinet secretary’s definition of a structural change is one that would be recognised. Affixing things to the wall is not changing the structure of the property. Structural changes in a building would, in most cases, require a building warrant to be approved.

I have heard the arguments, and I will make the case one more time for using recorded delivery for the delivery of notices. I guarantee that what is in the bill will be a recipe for disaster and for argument. As a landlord, I have tried to avoid that, and I think that the cabinet secretary and members who vote not to have notices served by recorded delivery will be making a mistake.

I will leave it there, because I know that time is short.

Not every landlord is in a position to appoint an agent. A period of 42 days is not unreasonable, especially if we consider the time that it takes Government agencies and ministers to respond to requests for information. I would leave the time period as it is.

I will leave it at that and listen to other points.

I am just doing that.

I will speak to my amendment 330. I fundamentally disagree with what the cabinet secretary said about it, and I find it frustrating that she wrote it off as unnecessary. In my opinion, the amendment is necessary for the simple reason that people who live in accommodation that is provided as part of their job will no longer have that accommodation should they no longer have that job. There is a balance to be struck here, as there is with all things in life. The person who comes in to take on their job will probably need that house. If that person is prevented from moving in, it is unlikely that the business will be able to continue to function in the way that it does.

I take the cabinet secretary’s point that local authorities have a duty to assess the condition of each person who applies for housing. However, the purpose of amendment 330 is different. It says that such persons should be classed as homeless and that they should be rehoused within three months of their employment ending. I think that that is a fair balance and that it is the right balance.

Amendment 382 is consequential to amendment 330, which I think is necessary—otherwise, I would not have lodged it.

I have looked at the other amendments in the group, and I will be able to support Jeremy Balfour’s amendments. There is much in Sarah Boyack’s amendments that I like, but I think that she pushes a bit far on occasion and stretches the envelope. However, I know that she feels that she is doing what is best and that therefore her amendments are necessary, too. I will vote for those that I think are appropriate.

Yes, I am pressing it.

I want to be clear at the outset that I am a great supporter of pets. I have four dogs and I would never want to be seen as preventing people from having pets in their houses and homes.

Amendments 199 to 201, 216 and 217 would require all notices regarding pets to be sent by recorded delivery. That might seem archaic, but it would protect both the tenant and the landlord in ensuring that the notices were sent and that copies of them were recorded. An unscrupulous landlord, for example, might say that he had responded to a notice from the tenant and all that would be required in law is for him to sign an affidavit to say that he had sent a notice—whether he had or not, he could just sign that. That could happen, which is why I believe that sending notices by recorded delivery, especially when there is a presumption in favour of one or the other party, would be sensible. In fact, in relation to most rented accommodation, notices are sent by recorded delivery.

Amendment 202 is a simple amendment that sets out that a pet cannot be kept at a property while an appeal about the pet is on-going.

Amendment 203 would mean that, if a tenant has applied to a tribunal to make a decision about a pet in a property, they cannot apply again in regard to that pet unless there has been

“a material change in circumstances.”

Amendment 204 would allow the landlord to refuse consent for a pet if they have medical reasons to do so. I give the example that if I get too close to cats, I come out sneezing and break out in hives, so it is extremely difficult for me to go into a property that I have let if the tenant has cats. My point is that many people have such conditions.

The reason for amendment 205 is that I want ministers to have to make provisions within six months of the act receiving royal assent about when it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent for a pet.

Amendments 206 and 214 would mean that a landlord could specify as a condition of the rent that carpeted floors and soft furnishing should be cleaned by an independent company at the end of the tenancy. Landlords should be able to do that; I am not saying that they must do so. However, it is a critical point because pets can sometimes be deliberately difficult—I have one that leaves me messages in the morning. If I was renting a property and that was the case with my pet, it seems only right that I should clean up.

Amendment 215 asks ministers to lay a draft instrument in relation to what they consider to be reasonable when it comes to keeping a pet.

Amendment 218 would mean that, when the landlord does not consent to a pet being kept, the tenant

“may not make a further application unless there has been a material change in circumstances.”

Amendment 219 would keep the presumption in relation to consent in the landlord’s favour rather than against it. That should not be an issue, because if ministers have laid regulations on the reasons for refusal, those should be quite clear.

To answer Maggie Chapman’s specific question about assistance animals, I absolutely consider them to be critical to people’s lives. Therefore, the presumption should be in favour of tenants being able to keep them. However, assistance animals are not always well-trained guide dogs; an assistance animal can also be a dog that keeps someone company. Therefore, it is suitable to say that the landlord may ask for carpets to be cleaned; that does not mean that they have to do so.

There are lots of other amendments in this group, so I will sum up. Amendment 15 shortens the timescale for responding to a pet request from 42 days to less than 30 days. That period is too short, especially if the landlord is perhaps on holiday or not in a position to receive the notice. Frankly, both parties should be talking to each other and speaking on the telephone.

I hear the cabinet secretary’s point, but I am trying to ensure that there is no dubiety, so that no one can say that something has happened when it has not happened. How would the cabinet secretary adjudicate in a situation in which somebody said that the notice had been served and the other person said that they had not received it? Whose side would she take?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am afraid that, again, my app would not connect. I would have voted no.

I reiterate the declaration that I made yesterday. I am a landlord who lets houses under private residential tenancies and I have also let or given housing to individuals as part of their job. I have been letting houses for more than 30 years and I am a qualified surveyor. Before I was involved in politics, I let houses for clients. I say that so that there is no accusation that I have ever used weasel words to cover up what I do.

Amendments 192 to 196 would ensure that, when an eviction is to be carried out at the end of a tenancy, it must be done within four months of the end of the tenancy. The rationale behind that is that, in every month that the tenant who stays there is unable to pay the increased rent, the burden on them to pay it at a later stage increases. Amendments at stage 2 suggested a period of three months. I am now probing to see whether the cabinet secretary agrees that four months is a more reasonable period than three months and she is therefore in a position to support that. I do not believe that it would restrict the discretion of tribunals and courts; it would just give them deadlines to work to.

Amendments 394 to 397 are about evictions for antisocial behaviour. They relate to PRTs, secure tenancies, assured tenancies and protected statutory tenancies. They mandate that, for each type of tenancy, the tribunal’s specified period for a person to be evicted for antisocial behaviour should be no more than two months. That provision has been specifically requested by people who are not landlords but are tenants, because they have been told that tenants in the house next door to them have been behaving antisocially. In some cases, they might be drug users or drug sellers who never seem to be moved on, which causes problems for neighbouring people in tenancies. That has happened in various places around Inverness and across the Highlands. It is therefore perfectly reasonable that, once antisocial behaviour has been proven, there should be a finite amount of time before the tenant is moved on.

I support Meghan Gallacher’s amendments on terminal illness, which I am delighted that the cabinet secretary and the Government appear to support. It seems totally appropriate that terminal illness is considered in such cases.

I cannot support Maggie Chapman’s amendment 8, which would extend the eviction period to 12 months in certain circumstances, such as when the landlord intends to sell the property or when the extension is intended to alleviate financial hardship. All that it would do is to create more financial hardship for the landlord and tilt the balance too far in the tenant’s favour.

The provisions in amendments 198 and 198A would be unfair on both parties. There is no justification for the notice period for evictions to be extended beyond 16 weeks.

Maggie Chapman’s amendments 77 and 44 propose a five-month ban on evictions every year. I think that the ban would be during the winter period. That would mean that a tenant could not be evicted during the winter, whatever the problems were. I am not sure that I see the logic of that, so I look forward to hearing Maggie Chapman’s arguments. It would be a bit like the transfer window for football teams, with things not being allowed to happen at certain times of the year.

Under amendments 284 and 284A, removal costs would be paid by the landlord. That would be completely unjust, and I see no reason for it. It should be for the tenant to move their equipment out of the house in the same way as they moved it in. If Ms Chapman expects the Conservatives to support amendments 284 and 284A, which would compensate the tenant for moving out, will she give me an assurance that the Greens will support my amendments 206 and 214, which would require tenants to pay for the cleaning costs at the end of their tenancy if they have kept a pet in the home? I might then be in a position to support her.

Katy Clark’s amendment 288 sets out that, if a landlord has been unable to sell a property, they cannot let the property. That means that, just because of the state of the market, they would be burdened with having to pay double council tax on that property for the period in which it was unable to be let.

The provisions in amendment 288 would be unjust. I will leave it there.