I will give way to Mr Dey if he wants say something, Presiding Officer.

Thank you. “In detail” does mean something, actually—it certainly means something to people outside the Parliament. I am not sure why the Government would object to having the word “detailed” instead of having nothing in there at all. Maybe if I put in the word “flimsy”, you would object to that as well.

At the outset, I state for the record—I am sure that it will not surprise anyone—that I do not like rent control areas. They are a blunt instrument to achieve the aim.

The purpose of my amendments 126 to 130 is to make people get a move on when they detail out and make reports. I do not believe that three months is too tight a timescale. In the real world, people provide reports much more quickly. It is therefore unfair to give the reason that “three months is too quick” and to excuse councils and the Government from making decisions in that period. For every month in which there is some dubiety, problems are caused in the rented sector—for tenants and landlords—and disagreement could be caused. That is why I want the process to be done in three months.

I will also draw to the attention of the cabinet secretary the fact that, although there may be no legal definition of “detailed” that she is prepared to accept, the “Oxford English Dictionary”—always a good place to start—says:

“having many details or facts”

and

“showing attention to detail”.

That is what I was asking for in the report. It is not a big ask. I am slightly disappointed that the cabinet secretary does not think that that is a useful addition to the points that she has made.

Amendments 60, 61 and 62, in the name of the cabinet secretary, are of concern to me because they take power from local authorities and invest it in the Government. I am not sure that that is democracy at local level.

I am disappointed with the cabinet secretary’s amendment 63, which, let us be clear, would remove an amendment that I moved at stage 2 and that was accepted by the Government when it was discussed at committee, which was to take into account the quality, state of repair and energy efficiency of a property. There is no doubt in my mind that properties that have high standards of insulation and the highest-quality furnishings demand a different rent to that of properties that do not have those things. It seems entirely appropriate that that was agreed to by the committee, which considered it in great detail. It is disappointing that the Government now thinks that it is appropriate to wade in.

Again, I am disappointed with the cabinet secretary’s amendment 64, which would remove the definition of “rent”. Meghan Gallacher made the point about district heating and heating infrastructure; however, it is not just about that. A lot of private rental properties in rural communities have private water supplies, which are incredibly onerous to check and maintain each year. Such properties might also have private sewerage supplies, which, as the cabinet secretary will know, do not appear on council tax bills. It therefore seems right and proper that the landlord should, if they choose, charge the equivalent amount to Scottish Water for maintaining adequate and wholesome supplies that we all want them to provide. I am disappointed that removing what is defined as “rent” could mean that the rent for a property that included those was considered to be too high. That would be a mistake, and I urge the cabinet secretary to reflect.

For the same reason, I have looked carefully at Mark Griffin’s amendment 270, which would extend the charges that are excluded from the rent that is payable to include broadband and district heating. That is a sensible amendment for a lot of reasons that I have just given, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will support it, leave in the effect of my previous stage 2 amendment and not move her amendment 64, which seeks to squash the committee’s considered decision at stage 2.

That is a wonderful idea, Ms Chapman—just come up to the Highlands and have a look round. I am sure that other members in this chamber, such as Ms Forbes, will tell you that what happens to a lot of the houses that become available is that they are bought up as second homes, which does not help anyone in the local community to find housing. I do not accept that argument.

Moving on, I am not sure that amendment 222, which sets up a public body to act as a guarantor, will be helpful. I think that it might saddle that public body with a huge amount of debt.

Without going through all the amendments, I can say that, bizarrely, I find myself in the position of agreeing with much of what Ross Greer suggests regarding the power to bring tenancies to an end and the model terms and regulations for landlords to apply when it comes to student lets. I look forward to Ross Greer talking about those amendments. I think that we are both, in different ways, trying to protect students and make sure that they find it easier to get accommodation in Scotland.

The member is right and has correctly construed that I would not have supported her amendment at stage 2.

I want to get an indication from you of where you are going with this. Are you—sorry, Presiding Officer. I will correct myself before you correct me. Is the member looking to do this on an annual basis or every few years? Would there be a standard form? I am looking for some guidance that she would expect the Government to follow when collecting that data.

Every time that we discuss the bill, I will remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. To be perfectly clear, and so that there is no dubiety, I state that I let houses under private residential tenancy agreements—those are long-term lets—and I give houses to employees as part of their employment contract. I have been in the house-letting industry for more than 30 years, and have let houses under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1998 and the subsequent housing acts that were passed in 2006, 2010 and 2014. I am a qualified surveyor and I let houses on behalf of clients prior to my time as a member of the Scottish Parliament. Given all that, I believe that I come here with some experience.

My amendments 179 to 191, and amendment 258, which is a technical amendment, seek to enable students to query their rents. We all know, particularly those of us who have had children go through university, that the rent that they pay is a huge burden on them and one that they will take through to later life.

The purpose of my amendments, which I lodged on the back of requests from various student bodies that approached me, is to place checks and controls on the rents that are set for student accommodation.

The cabinet secretary was right to say that I lodged similar amendments at stage 2, which were pushed on my behalf. I wanted to bring them back, because I want to ensure that students understand that this Parliament understands the pressure that they face with the rents that they are charged as a result of being at university. The amendments attempt to do that—they are probing amendments, maybe—and I have the support of the students in seeking to make those changes.

I would also like to talk about amendment 221, which is about deposits for non-UK domiciled students. I do not take the point that the cabinet secretary made that it is discriminatory. The fact that such students are charged greater fees than anyone else might be viewed as discriminatory. The amendment is a way to help those students to get accommodation for the simple reason that being a guarantor for somebody is a very difficult and onerous condition to take on. It is very difficult for landlords to accept guarantors if they are outwith the country.

My aim with the amendment is to make it easier for non-UK domiciled students to get a flat by paying more of the rent up front. That would give the landlord more confidence, and it would mean that students would not have to rely on trying to find a guarantor. I would ask the cabinet secretary to consider that carefully, because the amendment is meant to work in the favour of students, not work against them.

On Maggie Chapman’s amendment 220, having been in the industry for 30 years, I take grave exception to the general characterisation that she makes of landlords. That is not my view of landlords. Maybe it is just that I work in the Highlands and in more rural areas, but landlords are not out to make life difficult for tenants. In fact, long-term tenants are much better for landlords than short-term tenants.

Maggie Chapman’s characterisation does the industry a vast injustice. I point out to her that there are 300,000 let properties in Scotland. If we demonise all landlords and get rid of all that accommodation, it will just exacerbate the housing crisis that we face.

My concern is that, if you are suggesting in one breath that local authorities can make entries in the landlord register, every time an entry is made, the council applies another charge, and it seems to go up exponentially. The principle of charging for making entries in the landlord register is there, but I am concerned that if you are going to design a whole new system to bolt on to that, there will be charges. Can you not just agree that no one should be charged for providing information to allow you to do your job?

What I am trying to do with amendment 162 is to get the draft regulations laid early. I agree with the aim of the cabinet secretary’s amendment 155 that when a property is advertised, it should be declared whether it is exempt.

Meghan Gallacher still has to speak to her amendments. I will be interested to hear her address the point that often, when properties are taken on for which substantial works are required, such as works for EPCs and the removal of RAAC, the rent will be at a reduced level. If they were in a rent control area, when that work had been completed and the property brought up to a much higher standard, there would be limits on how much the rent could be increased. That causes me concern, because it is this Government—and this Parliament—that is telling landlords across Scotland that they must improve the condition of their rental properties. Therefore, if the rent was low while such work was being undertaken, it would be self-defeating not to allow landlords to put it up when they had completed the work.

Those are my points. I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary, and from Meghan Gallacher about her amendments.

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.

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.