Chamber and committees

Yes. You will be aware that the three main types of leases that we have in Scotland are agricultural, residential and commercial. The bill specifically looks at the commercial aspect. To widen it would probably be a huge job and require another bill. When the SLC considered it, it was specifically tailored for commercial leases. That is why those are the only types of leases that are covered in the bill. Perhaps Michael Paparakis has something to add to that.

Thank you, Mr Kidd. I do not agree that all sections of the bill that deal with notice are too complex. The current law already lacks clarity and certainty, so the bill will resolve that issue. The bill provides a short list of essential requirements for a notice to quit and a notice of intention to quit, which offers the flexibility to deal with the wide set of circumstances that are likely to be encountered by the landlords and the tenants in practice.

I know that the Scottish Property Federation told the committee that it does not see those provisions being

“any more difficult to follow”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 6 May 2025; c 32.]

than the current rules.

Moving forward, if there are any suggestions in the stage 1 committee report on how things could be simplified, I am happy to consider them.

The bill is still in the very early stages. You have just had your latest evidence session and I welcome the committee’s scrutiny of the bill. I will take on board everything that you have said. I do not know whether, at this stage, I will commit that the bill will be heavily amended throughout stage 2—I am not able to tell you that. However, interesting things have been raised that could be advantageous to the bill with regard to simplifying things, which I am willing to consider and write to the committee on. Michael, is there something that we could do to assist the committee in the scrutiny of the bill moving forward?

To respond to that point, one of the main aims of the bill is to simplify the process and make it easier for tenants and landlords to navigate.

The provisions in the bill on oral notice by tenants reflect the law as it is at the moment. For those who think that a tenant should give notice in writing, there is flexibility in the bill to provide for that. It is open to the parties to agree a provision in the lease that written notice must be given to terminate it—section 23 allows for that. To be clear, oral notice can be given by the tenant only when the lease is for less than a year, so that will not apply in all cases.

Leases of less than a year in duration tend to be more informal in nature and do not need to be in writing. They are of particular value to businesses that need flexibility because they are involved in temporary activities or are testing new markets, for example by operating concessions or food stands.

Requiring tenants to give written notice in all circumstances would be a significant change in the current law, and the Scottish Law Commission did not consult on it. It could also create a trap for small business people, who might think that, because they have entered into a lease by way of an oral agreement, they can terminate the lease in the same way, but they might find themselves having to continue to let the premises.

We should reflect on the possible unintended consequences that such a change in the law could have, particularly for small businesses when they are starting out.

I am pleased that the responses to the SLC’s recommendation that a stage 2 amendment be lodged to give effect to its recommendation have been generally positive, and I welcome the scrutiny that the committee has done on the matter.

As members will be aware, the SLC’s recommendation that the 1949 act be repealed was made in February this year, which was two months after the bill had been introduced. The Federation of Small Businesses, which represents businesses that have the kind of tenancy that the act is meant to help, told the committee that it would be a little bit softer with regard to using the bill to repeal the 1949 act.

I am aware that the SLC has expressed its hope that the Scottish Government will take forward its recommendation by lodging an amendment to the bill. I will consider carefully the responses from stakeholders and, in particular, whether any other consequential amendments might need to be made to the bill. I will write to the committee ahead of the stage 1 debate to set out my views on the repeal of the 1949 act and the lodging of an amendment to do so.

I understand that there has been a suggestion that tenants should be obliged to provide information about a heritable security to the landlord. There are potential difficulties with that in practice. For example, by the time the irritancy notice is required to be served, the heritable security could have been discharged or assigned. The Scottish Property Federation, when asked that question, told the committee that, although it might be helpful to be given notice, there are nonetheless ways in which the landlord could find out about security, which a prudent landlord would normally undertake before they serve notice.

Section 30 concerns the irritancy of leases and the landlord’s need to serve an irritancy notice on a tenant’s heritable creditor. Some stakeholders have criticised the provision, but I disagree and think that it is both workable and of wider public importance. The responsibility of landlords to search the registers will not place a disproportionate or undue burden on them. The committee has heard from the Scottish Property Federation, which represents landlords, that it has no issue with the requirement and that it is not much different from the reality of how leases work currently.

Yes—that has been brought up previously in evidence. It is an interesting proposal, and we are looking at how we can move forward on it.

We can definitely consider that.