I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.

To ask the Scottish Government what level of grant per property will be made available to assist home owners to achieve an energy performance certificate rating of band C or better by 2025. (S6O-01295)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My device is not connecting to the parliamentary system. I would have voted yes.

The app is obviously more reliable than I thought—or it shows.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The chamber has filled up and some members might have missed what I said earlier. I am happy to repeat some of it, but I will keep my comments reasonably brief.

Amendments 69, 70 and 71 try to get the Government to focus its mind and be honest about its intention. It is my opinion that retrospectively changing legislation is not a good way to do business. Indeed, it is lazy, if proper consultation and, better still, post-legislative scrutiny have not been carried out. This Parliament has an appalling track record when it comes to post-legislative scrutiny. Although the fault might lie at the door of committees, it is unarguable that that is the case.

Only yesterday, Mr Harvie said that the Government intends to introduce a new housing bill in the Parliament. As yet, we have seen no sign of that bill. That is not unusual. The previous session was littered with promised bills that did not happen, such as the crofting law reform bill, the inshore fisheries bill and the good food nation bill, to name but three. We need to understand when the Government will introduce the new tenancy and housing bill.

Mr Harvie said that he could not support amendments because a new pandemic might come along. If that happened, I would understand why legislative targets were missed, but that is an excuse. It is pure political dissembling.

Amendment 69 would place an obligation on the Government to introduce in the Scottish Parliament, by 1 October 2024, a bill to reform private housing tenancy law. As that date is two thirds of the way through this session, my amendment would ensure that the bill would go through the parliamentary process by the end of the session. It is a simple ask, which meets Mr Harvie’s stated timescales, to which he does not seem able to commit. The Parliament should force his hand and make the Government honour its principles and the promises that it made about the proposed bill.

Amendment 70 provides for a sunset provision to come into force if the Government agrees to amendment 69 and reverses the changes to the mandatory grounds in the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill. It is just another way of focusing the Government’s mind on the day job. I will not move amendment 70 if amendment 69 is not agreed to—indeed, amendment 70 does not have to be agreed to if amendment 69 is agreed to; that might be acceptable to other parties in the Parliament.

Amendment 71 provides for a sunset provision on all part 4 changes, with a date of June 2024. Again, the aim is to focus the Government’s mind on the bill that it promised to deliver without saying how and when. Agreeing to amendment 71 would demonstrate proper parliamentary procedure in holding the Government to account. I understand why the Government might object, but it is for non-Government parties such as mine to keep the Government focused on what it is doing. Amendment 71 would do just that.

I move amendment 69.

I can read the room, and I note the weariness of some people around the chamber.

I thank the legislation team for helping me to lodge 44 amendments at stage 2. That was quite a task. The legislation team helped me to do that when I was incapacitated in hospital. It also managed to draft the amendments in such a way that I would have to get the committee to vote against my amendments if I wanted to achieve what was in them. Trying to explain that to my party and my colleagues was not easy. However, the team was extremely helpful. That shows the professionalism of the service that we get.

I have been able to say a huge amount of what I wanted to say, and I do not want to rerun it all. However, there are some things that I would like to say about part 4 of the bill.

The bill is a smorgasbord of legislation in areas that should have been properly scrutinised and subject to committee scrutiny and post-legislative scrutiny so that we had the right ideas. In part 4, we saw a change to private residential tenancies. I believe that there is a lot in there that could have been done by consulting all the sectors, but things were done without doing that and without consideration. I found it deeply disappointing when I met the minister to discuss that. I heard the debate this afternoon. People peddle untruths. Whatever tenancy is set up—whether it be a regulated tenancy under the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, a short assured tenancy or an assured tenancy under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, or a private residential tenancy under the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016—there is a way to stop rent increases and appeal against them. If members are saying to constituents who write in that there is no way of stopping such rises, they are giving bad advice. My door will remain open to people seeking advice on how to appeal rent reviews.

My concern, which has been well debated this afternoon, is that the bill is a move of powers into the middle, which will prevent the Parliament from scrutinising the Government’s position on legislation. Therefore, I cannot support it.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The robust voting system robustly refused to let me access it. I would have voted yes.

There are a few points in those statements that I found really interesting. Mr Greene’s point that those issues are about housing and not Covid is particularly appropriate.

Perhaps the minister would like to address the issue that, during the pandemic, money was made available to cover tenancy rent shortfalls for both the tenant and the landlord. I assume that, as the Government is running the eviction measure forward, that money will continue to run forward. It would only be equitable to do that. I am happy to give way to the minister if he wants to answer that question.

There is no point in my moving amendment 67 if the current law is not being amended. I will not move amendment 67 or amendment 68.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My device is showing that connection to the digital voting platform failed. I would have voted yes.

It does not surprise me that the Government is shying away from agreeing to a timescale for its tenancy reform bill, which is all that I am trying to achieve. Not to do so, and to simply say that it is going to review at the end of the year the situation regarding mandatory and discretionary tenancy grounds is not helpful.

I say to the minister that if he is going to force more people to go through the First-tier Tribunal process—there is an argument for doing that; I am not saying that it is wrong—it will clog up the system. I would not have a problem with that, if the Government was going to provide more funds to the First-tier Tribunal, but at this stage, as the Government does not even know the full extent of the First-tier Tribunal cases and the length of time that it will take to sort them out, I think that its approach is entirely wrong. Therefore, I will proceed with my amendments, on the grounds that I like to see the Government being held to account.

I press amendment 69.