I will keep my contribution short. I think that Mercedes Villalba may have misdirected herself in law. There are controls for rent under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2014, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016.

I offered to discuss with the member how those controls work and how rent increases can be appealed and reduced. If she would like to come and find out how rents being put up to unreasonable levels can be stopped, the offer remains. There is a system and people should use it. The member should not say, I am afraid, that it does not exist, because it does.

I am not sure that the minister answered the question about whether the Government is rolling forward a measure without rolling forward the funding for it. The Government is rolling it forward because of Covid but not saying that it is because of Covid.

Murdo Fraser was also right in his comment. It is about addressing the balance. I do not need to remind members in this chamber about the importance of rural housing and housing across Scotland. It is not good to see our housing stock being reduced. Members should not forget that the number of rented properties—360,000 homes or 14 per cent of our housing stock—has already been reduced as a direct result of the 2016 act.

Again, Mr Fraser made an interesting point on rural issues. The rural housing problem is well known to those of us in rural constituencies. It is really difficult to find a house. I do not need to give an example, but I will give one anyway. In the region that I represent, there is a business that would expand drastically, but it cannot do so, because it cannot find enough housing. Those are the issues that we need to address.

In addition, I do not understand the research that has been done to support the Government’s position. Let us talk about the 1984 act. When was the last tenancy from the 1984 act? It is a bit of a rhetorical question, but it would have been in 1988. Anyone can work out that the chances of 1984 act tenancies being around are very slim and almost nil, because they would have expired by this stage.

Finally, I think that the big mistake with this section is that we should instead have brought forward a housing bill. I support bringing forward a housing bill—I want to have that debate. However, to change things midway through, and say that you are going to review the grounds at the end of the year when you have changed them now, really is disingenuous.

I press amendment 66.

I remind the Parliament at the outset of my entry in the register of members’ interests. For clarity, I state that my family farming business includes rental properties. The rental income from those properties is critical to the financial security of the core agriculture business. I also remind members that I spent 20 years as a qualified rural surveyor, working in the housing sector, which gave me an in-depth knowledge of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016.

Over the years, there has been a move towards increasing protection of the tenant, which I believe should be broadly welcome. The difficulty, of course, lies in finding the balance between the owner of the house and the tenant, ensuring that the legislation is equitable for both.

The 2016 act changed the balance in favour of the tenant, whose rights have become more defined, with their position given further protection. Not all private landlords welcomed the 2016 act but those who welcomed it did so on the basis that it retained some mandatory grounds and discretionary grounds for ending a tenancy. That would be changed under the bill.

We need to remember that there are 360,000 rented properties in Scotland, which is about 14 per cent of the total housing stock. We all recognise that housing is in short supply and that we need to keep as many houses as we can available for long-term occupancy. It should worry us that research published by Propertymark shows a 50 per cent reduction in the number of rental properties between 2019 and 2022. It attributes that decline to the 2016 act. Members should be under no illusion: fewer rental properties results in increased rents and increased pressures on social housing, both of which I would like to be avoided.

The pandemic rightly resulted in short-term changes to the way in which we lived our lives. It was right that those included the suspension of the mandatory grounds for landlords to regain possession of rental properties. However, we are past that now, and careful consideration needs to be given to determining what changes should remain.

At stage 2, I challenged the Government’s approach to each of the mandatory grounds for ending a tenancy in the 2016, 1988 and 1984 acts respectively. I thank Mr Swinney and Mr Harvie for engaging with me since then. Members will be happy to know that I do not intend to repeat that process, as it would have led to 40-plus amendments rather than the three that I have lodged in this group. However, I will consider briefly each of the key mandatory grounds that will be changed from the 2016 act.

The main grounds for house owners to take back possession of their houses are: to live in the house themselves; to allow a family member to live in the house; to sell the house with vacant possession; to allow the lender to sell the property if it is foreclosed on; to refurbish the property; to facilitate change of use; or to allow the property to be used for religious purposes. If the property is empty and not being used by the tenant, or if there are rent arrears of three months or more, the landlord can also get it back. Further reasons for that to happen are if the property was let as part of an employment contract and if there is a breach of the tenancy agreement.

I will pick up on the points that Mr Swinney and Mr Harvie deployed to counter my position at stage 2. Mr Swinney said that house owners have to apply to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland housing and property chamber to get possession of their houses. That is currently done on mandatory grounds and the tribunal has to grant possession. He states in his letter to me that the number of hearings by the First-tier Tribunal is limited and that most cases are resolved outside the tribunal process. However, we know that 77 per cent of first-tier hearings relate to rent arrears, so all the other grounds of possession are relatively minor. Therefore, there is little or no need to change those mandatory grounds to discretionary ones.

Mr Harvie stated that he wanted to protect the right of the tenant to live in a home, but he was unable to explain at what cost to the home owner. In relation to cases in which the owner or a family member wants to live in the house, where tribunals have shown that there is not a major disagreement, Mr Swinney’s argument for making that a discretionary ground falls. Mr Harvie’s argument also stumbles, because putting the tenant’s rights before the owner’s right to live in the house that they have bought and that they look forward to living in is, perhaps, disingenuous.

That is also the case when the property is required for sale with vacant possession. As a surveyor, I can tell members—this is a fairly accurate generalisation—that, if properties sell without vacant possession, they achieve only about 50 per cent of their value. Therefore, Mr Harvie’s proposal to remove that mandatory ground adversely affects the owner’s ability to recoup the real value of the property.

The bill claims to be a Covid recovery bill but, in the case of tenancies, I do not believe that it is. How can a bill that prevents an employer from being able to house an employee be considered as recovery? Remote and rural businesses will be devastated if they cannot use the houses that they have purchased for their workers when previous employees refuse to move out of them.

What happens when the Government’s wish to achieve energy performance certification for all houses across Scotland is driven forward? I do not think that that is feasible, but, if home owners cannot get vacant possession of their properties to do the works that they can afford to do, the target will be wildly missed. In my mind, it is an example of Mr Harvie shooting himself in the foot and paying lip service to climate change.

Before I finish speaking on the grounds for ending tenancies, I will briefly consider rent arrears. Rents often fund other activities, including mortgages, so loss of rental income might result in a mortgage default and repossession. That will definitely happen if it takes nine months or more to resolve an issue and it has to go through a tribunal process, which, prior to the pandemic, was taking at least eight months.

The Government should also not forget how important rents are to Scotland and how they generate income for the Government. Rental income is added to all other income and tax is paid on it at the rate of the other income, so the Government misses out if rent is not paid and properties are not let. All that shows how wrong the proposals are and why my amendments should be agreed to.

The proposals to reform tenancies are opportunistic. If the Government was serious about addressing the issue, it would have dealt with it in a housing bill. Indeed, one has been promised, but no date is known. Only yesterday, Mr Harvie told me that it would be introduced early in the current parliamentary session, so where is it? If the Government had prioritised the issue, it would have started consulting tenants, home owners and landlords, but I do not believe that it has done that.

I must make clear that the bill retrospectively changes the law, which the Parliament should not do lightly. If agreements are reached and both parties have signed up to them, rewriting them and disadvantaging either side is not reasonable or fair.

I clarify that my amendments 66, 67 and 68 seek to remove the proposed changes to the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984. For aficionados of those acts, I should also clarify that I know that the grounds for getting vacant possession are slightly different under each act, but, as much as I would like to go into further detail on why it differs, I suspect that that would appeal to a niche audience only, and I do not see that in front of me.

I seek the support of the Parliament for my amendments. I ask it not to make bad legislation by changing law retrospectively, and to do the right thing by introducing new law in the form of a housing bill that is consulted on properly, which is not the case with the bill.

I move amendment 66.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. I could not connect to the digital platform.

In the previous session of the Parliament, the First Minister’s Government agreed to debate the Sturrock report. In fact, it also agreed to do so in the current session of the Parliament. Does the First Minister think that the fact that the Government has not debated the Sturrock report has not helped to tackle bullying in the NHS, and that she should now fulfil her promise and provide time for the report to be debated, as she has undertaken to do twice before?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My voting app failed. I would have voted yes.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app was frozen as well—it does not seem to be working very well. I would have voted yes.

You gave me sufficient time at the beginning to make my case. I have listened to what the Deputy First Minister has said. Before stage 3, I would like to explore with him and with the Scottish Government how we can resolve any perceived backlogs that are realistically felt to be affecting the First-tier Tribunal. By looking at that issue, we might be able to give some confidence if the changes are to go ahead.

I fear that Mr Fraser is right about unintended consequences. I think that churches, for a whole heap of reasons, would rather not risk going through a tribunal and would think that it would be easier to let premises lie empty. I think that that goes for many landlords who wish to house their employees.

I press amendment 70. I am sure that we can look at each amendment in turn.

I would move amendment 71, but I might be able to help you. I do not know whether this is impertinent, but I think that the voting might continue in a certain way. Therefore, I would be happy to move amendments 71 to 82 and 146 en bloc, if that suits the committee and you, convener. I do not wish to pre-empt your position, but I am trying to save you some time.

I am very happy to move amendments 71 to 81 en bloc.