Chamber and committees

I might ask the legal team about that.

I will pass the question to Michael, to talk about the technicalities.

My understanding is that codification will simplify things by bringing into legislation all the legal principles of tacit relocation. It is a technical legal question, which I will pass over to Michael Paparakis to expand on, given his expertise.

As I said in my opening speech, the law of termination of leases needs reform because it is inaccessible, uncertain and outdated. The SLC considered the case for reform by consulting advisory groups, issuing a small discussion paper and engaging with the legal profession, landlords and small businesses.

The evidence that the committee has heard shows that legal professionals, the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland have all agreed that reform of some kind is needed. The Law Society, for instance, was clear that there is sufficient litigation and confusion in the area to justify reform for the advantage of tenants and landlords. In Scots law currently, commercial leases are principally agreed and governed by common law rules. When the law is not clear or readily accessible, that can result in unnecessary costs to the tenant and the landlord. Current legalities can cause difficulty for the landlord and the tenant, and resolving those can result in the expense of court proceedings. The bill is looking to simplify and improve that for the tenant and the landlord.

On the economic impact of the bill, I believe that it will have some economic benefit. Most businesses, whether they are small or large, from manufacturing through to professional services, retail, digital start-ups and the hospitality sector, operate to some extent out of let premises. Let premises make up 44 per cent of all non-domestic premises that pay rates, and the rateable value from those premises comes to £2.6 billion pounds. Making the law more certain and accessible can only benefit both tenants and landlords.

The issue of adding a bit more flexibility between the tenant and the landlord has been raised by a few people. It is an interesting suggestion, which we could explore moving forward. I do not know whether there would be any legal or technical obstacles to that. Michael might want to comment on that.

I do not have any information on that, because it is technical. I will pass the question to Lori Pidgeon or Michael Paparakis.

The Scottish Government notes that the bill would make the theft of an assistance dog an aggravated offence. As a result, the court would be required to consider whether the sentence given should be enhanced to reflect the significance of taking an assistance dog. That is one of the issues that the committee will be required to carefully consider as the bill is scrutinised. I note from Mr Golden’s letter to the committee of 18 April that he had engaged with stakeholders such as Guide Dogs Forfar, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Dogs Trust to inform the proposal.

I would like to know more from Maurice Golden about the evidence base to support and justify the position that the emotional impact on victims is not sufficiently considered during sentencing under current law. In the committee’s evidence-taking session on 26 March, the representatives from Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service highlighted that the police

“would have to be able to demonstrate that the accused knew that the dog was an assistance dog to be able to prove the aggravation.”

At the same evidence session, Stuart Munro from the Law Society of Scotland was also clear that

“the sentencing process is already structured in a way that should allow”

information about the impact of the theft of an assistance dog

“to be properly taken into account.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 26 March 2025; c 20-21.]

If somebody actively seeks to steal an assistance dog, our existing law already reflects that as being worthy of a more serious penalty. We are interested in hearing Mr Golden’s views on that when you take evidence from him.

I will bring in Mr Wilson.

Yes—my personal opinion at this stage is that it is a bit over the top, unless there is a justification from Mr Golden that would change my view.

Mr Wilson, do you have any further views on that?

We would be keen to hear from Mr Golden about his reasoning in that regard and how he would envisage those provisions moving forward. As I said at the beginning of the session, we are taking a neutral stance on the bill and we will be keen to see the committee’s stage 1 report. Nevertheless, as the Scottish Government, we have to ensure, as the process moves forward, that the bill is legislatively competent, so that it can be enacted, and I will be looking at that.

In Mr Golden’s response to the committee, which was published on the website yesterday, he indicates that the reasoning for setting out

“The list of information the annual report should contain”

is so that

“sound and robust data on dog thefts is collated and reported on.”

However, it may be considered unnecessary to place an annual reporting requirement on the Scottish Government for something that is considered to be low-level crime and on which we can already obtain statistics from the Crown Office.

Mr Golden’s response notes that the bill also

“includes the provision that the report must set out whether the Scottish Ministers consider whether there should be a statutory offence for the theft of any other animal kept as a pet.”

I am sure that every member has received emails in relation to that.

It would be welcome to get some further information from Mr Golden when he appears before the committee on 21 May as to the reasons for including that provision in the bill.