Thank you, Presiding Officer. Before my comments, I remind members of my entry in the register of interests, which shows that I own rental properties in Moray.

Six months ago, the Government rushed through legislation, without consultation, to freeze rents and continue an eviction ban across Scotland. Although the policy appeared to be well intentioned, the Scottish Conservatives repeatedly warned the minister that it would have damaging consequences for the housing sector. Those warnings fell on deaf ears. The minister appeared to know better, but clearly he did not.

Since the legislation was passed, plans to build 11,000 new affordable homes in Glasgow have been paused—£1 billion-worth of investment has been halted. House builders and landlords have lost confidence in the Government, and to prove it the Scottish Association of Landlords has launched a judicial review of the emergency legislation. If the Scottish Government loses the case, it could be liable for compensating all who are affected. I am not sure whether the minister has even considered that.

However, the minister now wants Parliament to extend the provisions of the legislation for six months, which will allow a 3 per cent rent increase in the private sector and an unregulated rise in the social sector. The big question for most people is about how the Government came up with the figure of 3 per cent. Was it based on evidence, or was the figure plucked from thin air? I believe that the minister needs to justify it by sharing his workings, because to me it looks no better than a guesstimate.

I believe that a rent cap will impede many landlords from having the capital to make what are increasingly expensive updates to their properties, many of which are mandated by legislation. In the long term, it does not make sense to renovate a private rental property when the landlord will only ever make the basic minimum or have to remove it from the rental market. Scotland’s rental sector cannot be allowed to shrink.

The Government damages the private sector at its peril, I believe. The sector provides 340,000 homes, but that number is falling, and it will fall even further if the Government continues to penalise landlords. I remind Parliament that I believe that we need every single one of those houses. A drop in the supply of homes will, after all, hurt tenants most.

I believe that the SSI will penalise private rental landlords and that, in the long term, it will hurt tenants. I call on members to oppose the SSI; it is based on a guesstimate.

I am in my last minute, but I will give way if I have time.

I am sorry—I would have taken Mr Mason’s intervention if I had had time.

The SSI is bad for landlords and bad for tenants, and it is contributing to the collapse in the number of existing rental properties and preventing new ones from being built. Frankly, I believe that it is bad news for us all.

If you are going to do so, I remind you to send it to the clerks so that we can all get sight of it.

Mercedes, you have been sitting very quietly and patiently. I think that you have got some questions.

Thank you very much, Liam. We go back to Fiona Hyslop for another question.

It must be a brief one. I am sorry—I am just worried about time.

Agenda item 3 is consideration of petition PE1866, which was lodged by Daryl Cooper in May 2021. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to provide for wheelchair users to be able to face frontwards when travelling on a bus.

I refer members to paper 3, which provides background information and outlines possible actions.

At our meeting on 1 November 2022, the committee considered the petition and agreed to keep it open. The committee agreed to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ask how local authorities were delivering improvements for wheelchair users on public buses. It also agreed to make representations to the UK Government on its upcoming review of the rules that govern accessibility on public transport.

I turn to committee members for their views. I note, in particular, the options that are set out in paragraph 18 of paper 3, which are to keep the petition open and await the outcome of the review of the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000, which is expected later this year, before agreeing further action, or to close the petition on the basis that the committee has exhausted all options to progress it and to agree to write to the House of Commons Transport Committee, which is undertaking an inquiry on accessible transport, to inform it of the petition and the concerns that it highlights and ask it to let us know the outcome of its inquiry. What are members’ views?

Mark Ruskell has a question.

We are all struggling to work out who is going to answer. Maybe I can help. We will hear from Daniela Diz and Colin Galbraith, and then we will have to move on to the next question.

You have 30 seconds to answer it. [Laughter.]

It is a huge question, so it is only reasonable that you tackle part of it, Dr Long, and then we can go to Colin Galbraith and Ruth Mitchell—and Daniela Diz, too, at a push; I will not exclude you, Daniela.