That just proves to me your lack of knowledge of the market, minister, because not all private landlords seek to raise rents every single year—only a small number of landlords do so. If the Government had signalled the way in which it would deal with the matter in its instructions to the First-tier Tribunal, that would have limited the number of cases going there.

Anyway, minister, you well know—

I remind members again of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a holder of rental properties in Moray.

So, the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill is to become law. Before I discuss what other people have said during the debate, I want to talk about where we are. The Scottish Government has, without doubt, failed to build enough social housing over the 15 years that it has been in office, which has put pressure on the housing market. The Government also adjusted tenancy legislation through the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, which distorted the market. The act reduced by 50 per cent the number of private rental properties and removed them from long-term lets. The result is that we have only about 340,000 let properties in Scotland. Reducing the number of available houses puts up the pressure on people who need to find a house and increases rents.

Over the past two days, we have had what, to me, was an unedifying spectacle of the Parliament being forced into emergency legislation. I question whether it was required, when in fact a tweak to the Rents (Scotland) Act 1984, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 would have allowed the Government to say that all rent increases had to go before the First-tier Tribunal, which could then have been given a direction on how to deal with those rent increases.

That approach would have been fair and it would have allowed both sides to put their case. It would also have allowed the Government to take further soundings on the market. It might have distorted the market, but I do not think that it would have destroyed it.

Sorry, Presiding Officer.

As the minister will be aware, tribunals are not correctly funded at the moment, so part of the approach would have been about funding tribunals correctly.

I have been involved in enough stage 2 debates in Parliament to understand that proposed legislation, when submitted, is never perfect. Frankly, I find it amazing that there was not a single SNP or Green amendment among the 101 amendments that were put before Parliament. My biggest disappointment is that the Government did not listen to the amendments on the reporting of the outcome of the legislation after each period.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will want to review what I actually said, which is that I have been involved in enough stage 2 amendment debates. That is what I was talking about—I was not talking about today. I was going to go on to say that I realise that six amendments were taken forward from last night’s debate and that some amendments have been agreed to today. I believe that not amending legislation at stage 2 and not having the whole Parliament take part is not democracy.

I turn to the contributions. The cabinet secretary said that there is a right to act. There is a right to act, but one cannot act if one does not know the full cost of one’s action, which the minister never laid out and which is not in the financial memorandum.

Miles Briggs mentioned the 26,000 homeless households; sadly, we have not addressed that point or worked out how to address it. Mark Griffin was right that tenants should seek security, but we need landlords to have that security, too—knowing that their tenants are capable of paying their rents and of staying in their house. Every landlord looks for a long-term tenant and they will work for it.

I commend Willie Rennie and I am glad to join him on the social housing issue, which is important. I am glad that Bob Doris supported that point in last night’s and today’s debate, when he said that he feared for the social sector. Jamie Greene was spot on—his general point is that there will be a cost for this rent freeze and that it might not be the cost that we want to end up paying.

I agree with Ariane Burgess, who said that there are not enough houses across the region that we both represent, which is why I always push the Government to build more.

The bill will pass today, and I fear that it will be the start of a bigger problem—that fewer houses will be available to rent in the private sector, which will drive up the rents of those houses. The bill does not in any way respect and reward good landlords, of which there are many out there. I fear that fewer repairs will be carried out in private accommodation, because the rents will not facilitate them—that point was mentioned about the social housing sector—which will make it difficult to reach the minister’s target on energy performance certificates for private properties in 2025.

The Government might think that this is the start of its action in the private rented sector, but I hope that the passing of the bill does not signify the destruction of the private rented sector, which I believe has a key part to play in providing housing in Scotland.

I am afraid that we on the Conservative side of the chamber cannot support the bill today.

Will the minister take an intervention?

It will be very brief. I understand that the Scottish Government wishes to invest in housing, but insulating old housing costs a lot of money. I have been a surveyor and I have had properties that have had to be insulated, and it is my estimate that it costs £40,000 to £50,000 to get a property up even one level of the EPC ratings. That is nowhere near what the Government is promising for its social housing.

I am sorry, convener. I could not hear what was being said.

I want to speak to amendments 52, 61 and 68, which relate to the period of time in which substantial rent arrears can accrue. In the bill currently, the period is six months; I am suggesting that it should be three months.

I would like to make it clear why I am suggesting that. First, there seems to have been a confection peddled that all landlords are bad landlords, but that is not the case. Most landlords are struggling to let their properties, and most do that at a fair rate.

I am taken by the fact that the amendments that have been lodged in the group all seek to achieve the same thing, which is to hold the Government to account as a result of the emergency legislation. We are all trying to work out what the effects will be, not only on landlords but on tenants and therefore on housing in Scotland. I am taken, too, by the comments of Mark Griffin and Pam Duncan-Glancy—I cannot agree with all their amendments but I agree with some of them—as well as those of Jamie Greene and Paul Sweeney. I like their approach, because it is about making the Government answer questions on legislation that it has introduced.

My amendment 92 aims to further hold the Government to account. It would require the Scottish ministers to prepare a report, after the expiry of part 1, on

“the cost and effect on landlord and tenants”

and

“the cost to the Scottish Ministers, including loss of income from taxation”.

That latter issue is not covered properly in the financial memorandum that accompanies the bill.

If the five members who have amendments in the group got together and drafted an amendment to make a proper reporting procedure for the Government, that would have huge merit. The Government says that it will

“undertake a review of the operation of the provisions of Part 1 with a view to considering whether those provisions remain necessary and proportionate”.

All that it has to say is that the provisions are necessary and proportionate, and that could be the end of the report. To me, that is not sufficient.

I thank the minister for that helpful clarification of the Government’s position, which dispels some of the comments that have been made by other people. I would say that those comments have not been made by him or the Government.

Landlords struggle to keep their properties let. They want continuation of a tenancy, because every time a tenant moves out of a property, there are costs incurred, such as carrying out an inventory, portable appliance testing, gas testing and advertising the property, to name but a few. Those costs can be in excess of £800 per property.

That is an interesting figure, because it correlates to the figure that is in the bill’s financial memorandum, which says that the average rent for properties in Scotland is in the region of £780. That is an interesting figure as well, because rent arrears for such a property for three months would equate to over £2,000 and rent arrears for four months would equate to over £3,000. If one allows those rent arrears to build up, one is building up problems for the tenant, because they will have to repay. My concern is that the longer that takes to get to a conclusion, the more a tenant could be struggling.

Addressing the problem over three months might not be a silly thing to do. That gives the tenant and the landlord the chance to get together to try to find a solution. Evidence that has been given to me today suggests that going to the First-tier Tribunal takes six to nine months in Glasgow, so the problem is that it could be 15 months before a problem is resolved.

If someone repays rent arrears at £50 a month, which seems to be reasonable, that means that the tenant could be paying £50 a month for over 15 years. That is an incredibly long period, and that causes me concern.

I would also suggest that the longer the tenant is in arrears, the more difficult it is for the landlord to make improvements. I made this argument earlier in the debate: we all have an obligation to ensure that properties are properly insulated and costs are kept down. To give the minister an idea—although I am sure that he knows these figures—a boiler for an average house costs about £4,000 and double glazing could cost £6,000 to £7,000. Insulation for the house alone—without including the floor—could, by the time one has redecorated, be in the region of £15,000. Every time the landlord loses money, we are delaying the point at which we will reach net zero.

I have made the point about landlords working with tenants.

No mention or acknowledgement has been made of the important part that landlord registration plays at local government level. Landlords who do not measure up—landlords who are not good landlords—can be removed from the Scottish landlord register, which then means that they are not able to rent their property.

I lodged amendment 70 in a bit of a rush because of the emergency nature of the legislation, and it could be improved. I ask the minister or his officials to consider including a provision that advice be made available to landlords as well as tenants, so that both sides know the advice that they need to consider when the value of rent in arrears reaches excessive levels, which would be helpful for both parties. If the minister were minded to consider that addition, I would be happy not to move amendment 70 at this stage and lodge it again at stage 3. I am happy to hear other arguments on the amendments that I have lodged.

The point of these amendments is to provide that at the conclusion of this emergency legislation the First-tier Tribunal will take into account the market value of rent. The whole point of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 was to allow the market to set the rent. A lot of people would say that rents have become inflated in some areas, but I have to say that that is not my experience of 35 years working in the market in the Highlands, where there has certainly been the definition of an open market rent, which is the best value that can be achieved with a willing landlord and tenant.

Both sides must be willing to enter into an agreement. My fear is that, by not including that and saying that it will determine which matters need to be taken into account, the Government will distort the market, which will cause houses to be taken out of the rental sector, as my colleagues alluded to in earlier conversations.

If people cannot get a rent that covers the cost of a property on a long-term let—I have to say that, in my case, that is what I try to achieve because there is value to long-term lets—they will have to look at other vehicles, such as short-term lets and Airbnb. Frankly, that will not help people to live in communities. The minister has views on that, some of which I support. Therefore, I ask that the Government considers including the words “open market rent” when this emergency has passed. At the moment, it has specifically excluded those words.

I move amendment 94.