I speak in support of Willie Rennie’s amendment 5 and Miles Briggs’s amendment 23. I do not think that anyone can argue that housing associations and charities have not worked extremely hard to meet the needs of their tenants. They have struggled in previous years with rent caps.

One of the big issues with the cost of living crisis is that houses are incorrectly insulated, which is why we need to invest in the insulation of houses. A survey that I carried out in Wick alone suggested that, of the 850 properties that the council owns, 530 are below energy performance certificate rating C. It would cost in excess of £21 million to get those properties up to the correct level.

We need to encourage landlords to invest in their properties, and I, along with many other Highland MSPs this morning, received a disturbing email from a housing association that is going to have to review its future investment in properties as a result of the bill. It has—rightly—agreed a rent freeze, and it was looking to have a rent increase in line with inflation next year. That seems to be sensible—it was helping its tenants this year in order to invest next year. Now, it is in the position where it has helped the tenants this year but it cannot help them next year by investing in the fabric of its buildings, because it will not be allowed to address the issue of rent.

We need to remove housing associations and charities from the bill so that they can address that issue and carry on with such investment. If we do not give them certainty into the future, the supplier industry is such that any work that might be allowed if the rent freeze did not continue would not be able to be programmed, because the materials would not have been requisitioned early enough.

That is why I support amendments 5 and 23, and I believe that the Parliament should too, because to do so will not only help tenants but address the problem of insulating properties, which Scotland should be trying to achieve.

I understand that the minister grouped amendment 70 with amendments 52, 61 and 68, but amendment 70 is different—it is about advice to tenants and landlords. The minister has not covered that amendment. I would be happy not to move it if the minister or his officials will work with me to allow advice to be developed for tenants and landlords. That would strengthen the bill.

Before I speak to amendments 52, 61 and 68, I would like to correct an error that I made earlier by chiding the minister for not understanding that a private residential tenancy does not have a fixed term but actually lasts for an undefined period. I said that in response to a comment that I thought was made by the minister, but it was actually made by Ms McNeill. However, the minister did not correct her, which caused me some concern. I ask the minister to accept my apologies—[Interruption.] No, this is a substantial point, and when one is wrong, I think that it is always worth admitting it. [Interruption.]

I want to speak to that point, because it is seriously important that the First-tier Tribunal is working properly to prevent problems getting worse. My colleague Miles Briggs mentioned getting the correct resources. It would also be extremely helpful for the Government to consider reporting on the efficiency of the tribunals.

I have asked questions on the issue in Parliament before, but the Government has not been able to tell me how long the waiting list for the First-tier Tribunal is. I was told today that Glasgow’s waiting list is between six and nine months. Frankly, that is not good enough, and the Government should accede to Mr Briggs’s request.

On a point of order, convener. Is the minister saying that, under the latest legislation—which he will know—tenancies will end? That is not true. If that is what he has just said, that is wrong. I would like the minister to clarify that point.

I thank Pauline McNeill for taking an intervention. As I noted yesterday, my entry in the register of members’ interests shows that I own private rental housing.

The problem with First-tier Tribunal arbitration is that the current wait time is eight to nine months. The financial memorandum for the bill says that there are sufficient funds for it, but obviously there are not. Will Pauline McNeill reflect on whether, to comply with her wish, the First-tier Tribunal would have to have more money so that it could sit more regularly and give satisfactory answers quickly to tenants?

On a point of order, convener. I could not connect to the voting app. I would have voted yes.

I fear that we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and we are making huge decisions based on generalised comments in relation to some parts of Scotland.

That is why we need to consider what the open market rent would be. My amendments do not suggest that it has to go to an open market. I am just saying that that value should be considered.

As the minister well knows, the danger is that, if we do not give some stability to the private rental market, there will be a lack of investment in it. There is a large builder located close to Elgin that has already put development on hold because of the bill.

I press amendment 94.

Thank you for that, Jackie.

I do not necessarily have concerns; I may be delighted that the precautionary principle is there, because it overrides a lot of decisions relating to environmental law. I would argue that it is actually a good thing and the fact that it is in UK and Scottish legislation strengthens the position.

I have picked up on three areas. You feel that the word “consult” in clause 121 is not sufficiently strong; you are concerned that there are regulations that you have not seen that could be worse but are not definitely worse; and you are worried that the regression clause—clause 120—is not strong enough. If there were more detail on those areas, would that address your concerns? You could give a yes or no answer, but I suspect that you will not.