I reconvene the meeting, which we paused because someone had lost control of the microphones—I do not know who it was; I think that it was someone from the IT department.

Sue, I do not know whether you got any warning that I was coming to you next, but you are next. Could you answer the question?

I am trying to keep the questions on theme, so members will ask you questions later.

Shivali Fifield, do you want to come in next?

Do any of the witnesses think that the bill does not define ecocide sufficiently? If you do not think that it does, you can raise your hand. Otherwise, you are agreeing with what Jamie Whittle has said. You have all looked away perfectly.

The next question is from Kevin Stewart.

Well, where does the cost lie? The cost may be £40,000 for a property. Let us say that my proposed increase of two percentage points above RPI would add 5 per cent on a rent of £700 per calendar month. As I am sure that the member will be able to work out, that would be £35—that is all that the landlord would be looking for as a contribution each calendar month, when that landlord may have just put £40,000 into doing up the house. There is some benefit to the tenant. I am not saying that the tenant needs to pay for it all—far from it—but I am saying that some contribution can be made.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that CPI is the right indicator to use. It is well recognised throughout the industry—in all sectors, in fact. It took me a bit of time to look up what the other indicators that Ms Chapman suggests in her amendment 168 actually are, so I agree with the cabinet secretary on that.

I am not sure that I heard the cabinet secretary speak to amendments 173 and 174; she might have skipped over them accidentally. Nevertheless, my point in respect of those amendments, which the cabinet secretary might want to address in summing up, is that the tenancy can be ended in the first year or with six months’ notice. I am therefore suggesting that if a reduced rent has been given, there ought to be the ability to reconfigure it after six months if the tenant leaves early. I think that that would make sense.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s acceptance of my amendment 175—that is the first one that she has accepted today. There is always a bit of cheer when you get your first amendment through. I agree with some of the other amendments from the cabinet secretary.

On amendments 170 and 171, lodged by Ms Chapman, I am unclear whether what is being suggested is that the rent should actually go down—[Interruption.] I have seen a nod, so that is what is being suggested. I am not sure whether that is ever going to be realistic, because I am not sure that prices go down year on year. They never seem to have done that since I have been alive, but that has only been 64 years—it will be 65 years next year. I am not sure that I have ever seen prices come down. I could say a lot more, but I will leave it at that as I already have one win and, given that the cabinet secretary missed out two of my amendments, I hope that I may yet get three.

Some of the language that I am hearing is not representative of what, I believe, happens in the rented sector. I do not believe that it is out of control. It might be in areas that Ms Chapman knows, but it is certainly not in the areas that I represent.

Many landlords are trying desperately hard to improve the standard of their housing stock; I do not think that people give landlords enough credit in respect of the amount of work that needs to be done. For example, the cost of trying to upgrade a 1950s stone house may be up to £40,000. If rents for those types of houses—which are not uncommon in the Highlands—are around £600 per calendar month, it will take a huge amount of time to pay those costs back.

I accept the point that Ms Chapman makes—I see owning property as a huge privilege. However, I also see it as a huge responsibility and—as many landlords do—I take my responsibility to my tenants extremely seriously.

It might amuse Ms Chapman to know that the only house that I own that has no double glazing is my own, because I cannot afford to put it in, but I have made sure that every single one of my tenants’ properties has double glazing. I think that a lot of landlords would react in that way.

I turn to the amendments in this group, starting with amendment 166 in my name. The reason that I suggest an increase of two percentage points is that there are huge costs—as I have just alluded to—coming down the line. The requirement to replace oil or gas boilers—if that is all that a property has—with air-source heat pumps will be a huge cost. I have argued about that with the industry, but I think that we all agree that it is probably going to be a minimum of £15,000. If we add on top of that the painting of the house and the rewiring that may be required, it is clear that there will be considerable costs. I remember—[Interruption.]

Mr Harvie may shake his head, but I remember showing him, when he was Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights, the costs of the EPC upgrade that he was looking for. I provided evidence for those costs, which I know that he discounted, but they were based on my experience as a surveyor and as a landlord.

There are huge costs, which why I wanted to see whether the bill could be amended to allow landlords to go to two percentage points where they are doing improvements.

I will speak to my amendments first. Amendment 141 would require the information requested by a local authority and supplied by the landlord to be entered on to the landlord register. It is vital that we do not continue to ask for the same information time after time. That is an easy and slovenly way to keep a register and would be a failure. I want to see local authorities entering such information on the roll and for landlords to have the ability to update it as and when they see it as appropriate to do so. If we are asking landlords to provide information to local authorities, providing that information should not come at any cost to them. If we are going to fine them for not providing information, it seems odd to charge them for providing it in the first place.

I have no problems with Maggie Chapman’s amendment 139 and Meghan Gallacher’s amendments.

I have a slight concern about Maggie Chapman’s amendments 275 and 140, given the way in which she spoke about them. I am not convinced that she understands the definition of “open market rent”. It is clearly laid out that an open market rent is the price that is achieved with a willing landlord and a willing tenant, without there being any obligations on either. That is my definition of “open market rent”. It is not, as Maggie Chapman suggests, the highest rent that the landlord can achieve. Those are two very different things. Technically speaking, the open market rent for a property is as I have described it.

Maggie Chapman’s amendments 30 to 33, which would increase from £1,000 to £2,000 the fine for landlords for not providing data, are absolutely unnecessary. Would that mean that £2,000 would be added every time that a landlord failed to provide any information? Where would it stop? The amendments are not clear about that.

I look forward to hearing Emma Roddick’s explanation for amendments 149 and 262. My gut tells me that we should support those amendments, but I would just like to ensure that there is nothing more to them than what is set out in them.

I also look forward to hearing Graham Simpson’s explanation for amendment 151. I am probably more comfortable with his amendment 263.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I may have jumped the gun a bit, as the cabinet secretary may be about to tell me that she believes that things such as private water supplies and private drainage ought to be considered. Nevertheless, by taking that definition out of the bill, is she not creating more problems? Should she not have taken a sensible approach to the matter and defined what could be included in rent, rather than just saying what cannot be included?

I will speak to my amendments first. Amendment 141 would require the information requested by a local authority and supplied by the landlord to be entered on to the landlord register. It is vital that we do not continue to ask for the same information time after time. That is an easy and slovenly way to keep a register and would be a failure. I want to see local authorities entering such information on the roll and for landlords to have the ability to update it as and when they see it as appropriate to do so. If we are asking landlords to provide information to local authorities, providing that information should not come at any cost to them. If we are going to fine them for not providing information, it seems odd to charge them for providing it in the first place.

I have no problems with Maggie Chapman’s amendment 139 and Meghan Gallacher’s amendments.

I have a slight concern about Maggie Chapman’s amendments 275 and 140, given the way in which she spoke about them. I am not convinced that she understands the definition of “open market rent”. It is clearly laid out that an open market rent is the price that is achieved with a willing landlord and a willing tenant, without there being any obligations on either. That is my definition of “open market rent”. It is not, as Maggie Chapman suggests, the highest rent that the landlord can achieve. Those are two very different things. Technically speaking, the open market rent for a property is as I have described it.

Maggie Chapman’s amendments 30 to 33, which would increase from £1,000 to £2,000 the fine for landlords for not providing data, are absolutely unnecessary. Would that mean that £2,000 would be added every time that a landlord failed to provide any information? Where would it stop? The amendments are not clear about that.

I look forward to hearing Emma Roddick’s explanation for amendments 149 and 262. My gut tells me that we should support those amendments, but I would just like to ensure that there is nothing more to them than what is set out in them.

I also look forward to hearing Graham Simpson’s explanation for amendment 151. I am probably more comfortable with his amendment 263.

I want to disprove something that Maggie Chapman said to members earlier about landlords weaselling out by exempting properties. I am not doing that. I am not doing it through cunning and deceit; I am doing it quite openly. Amendment 161 would mean that, where a tenant is an employee of the landlord and the property’s rent is below the market rent, the property would be exempt from rent controls.

The reason why I am making this point—I will be interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s response to this—is that she will be aware of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Order (No 72) 2025 and how much one can charge for properties that are supplied to people who are agricultural workers: it is a very low market rent. There might be times when, due to a shift in their employment, they move from one property to another and, therefore, it might be appropriate to increase the rent because they are no longer in one place—for example, they might have been given a reduced rent for working full-time on a farm.

That is one aim of amendment 161. The other relates to property given to people whose work requires them to be in the location—that is the only reason why there can be an exemption under the benefits in kind system. Should the position change, the property would probably end up having a very low market rent, and if it was within a rent control area, there would be restrictions on how much the rent could be increased. I ask the cabinet secretary to consider that and perhaps to speak to it when she sums up.

I turn to amendment 162. Throughout the proceedings I have made the point that, when there is uncertainty in the market, the market will react to it. Through amendment 162, I aim to get the cabinet secretary to make draft regulations within six months of the bill being passed. The cabinet secretary is seeing the legislation through the Parliament, but it might not be the cabinet secretary herself who is in a position to lay those draft regulations. [Interruption.] The cabinet secretary thinks that it will be her. Let us wait until the election, when the people of Scotland will decide.