Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab): I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution. In the stage 1 debate I spoke exclusively on the rogue landlord aspects of the bill, given the antisocial behaviour of the tenants of rogue landlords in my constituency. I make no apology for reiterating my concerns, because the problems are on-going.

A new case that landed on my desk the other day made me reconsider my previous definition of a rogue landlord. Hitherto, all my casework involved complaints about the antisocial behaviour of the tenants of landlords who are unregistered under current legislation and who are therefore, by definition, rogue landlords. In this new case, the landlord is registered, but he has told the exasperated neighbours of his antisocial tenants that he is just an investor and that they should talk to his managing agent.

I have written to the landlord in question at his home in a leafy suburb outside Glasgow, to ask him not to act like a rogue landlord and to restore my constituents’ quality of life.

I would have hoped for more effective enforcement of the existing legislation in such cases, but the enforcement authorities in Glasgow have been adamant that the legislation needed strengthening. As the minister says, after today they will have the full set of tools for the job and I, for one, intend to ensure that they do their job with those tools.

When the bill is enacted, it should spell the beginning of the end for rogue landlords. It should also be a big setback for unregulated, irresponsible letting agents. That is a good thing, as they currently do little or nothing to vet the suitability of potential tenants.

When some aspects of the bill were removed from the recent Housing (Scotland) Bill, I expressed fears in the chamber that we would run out of parliamentary time to deal with those important matters. I am delighted to have been proven wrong, but it was a close-run thing.