Chamber and committees

Thank you.

It is clear that you are involved in a range of work, involving many agencies and individuals. As you say, you are also looking at the recommendations and attempting to implement them. I appreciate that you are not at the end of that work but, based on the work that you have done so far, what would you point to as being the major drivers for the increase of drug deaths?

I understand. Is any further guidance likely to be provided for the implementation?

I want to ask about drug deaths in custody in prison. There are unacceptably high levels of drug deaths, and no death is acceptable. One witness told us that

“We have not looked enough at the drivers of the increased number of deaths in prisons.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 4 June 2025; c 47.]

It would be interesting to know whether you agree with that statement and to hear your thoughts on what the drivers are. Do the determinations of fatal accident inquiries give us some of the insights that we need? I appreciate that you have already referred to the rise in the strength of the drugs that are in prisons, cabinet secretary—I do not know who would be best to comment on that first.

You made that point clearly, right at the beginning of the evidence session. Liam Kerr also raised the issue of overcrowding—we have heard evidence that the boredom that people face and the lack of meaningful activity are another driver that drives people to drugs.

We have heard evidence that toxicology results of drug tests can generally take up to 18 months, which can delay learning. Are you looking at that? Is that an accurate reflection of the situation?

That would be extremely helpful. Any further information about delays that could be addressed would be of interest to the committee.

I agree that there should not be a gap in hate crime legislation, so it is quite right that the Scottish Government is coming forward with proposals. Leaving aside all the debates around the misogyny bill for now—I appreciate that we may come back to that in relation to new offences and that these proposals are perhaps a different and additional approach—I note that Engender thinks that

“the hate crimes model was not designed to address the nature and scale of”

violence and discrimination against women. Moreover, the working group said that it would be very difficult to prove that a specific act had happened based on sex.

Does the cabinet secretary agree with those points? If so, how has that element been taken into account in the drafting of the SSI? Has there been consideration as to whether it is simply a matter of slotting in the word “sex”, which seems to be the case in the SSI, or whether the matter needs to be addressed in a different way, with further redrafting? Did the cabinet secretary grapple with or have discussions with officials about the issue?

That is helpful. It seems that there really is not very much flexibility around that, given how the original legislation was drafted.

Perhaps you have considered, especially given some of the complexity of such issues, how the change will be addressed in the training of the police and other agencies that are responsible for implementing the new provision. Has there been discussion about that?

I will speak to amendments 288 and 289, in my name. Amendment 288 relates to eviction orders for occupied properties on grounds of sale when the landlord seemingly abandons plans to sell. Generation Rent found that, in 2022, nearly a third of private landlords who evicted tenants in order to sell their property had failed to sell the property more than a year later. We know of many situations in which tenants have been evicted on grounds of sale and the property has been put back on the rental market at a higher rent. Amendment 288 is intended to address that scenario. The amendment would restrict landlords from letting, or attempting to let, the property in question within six months of an eviction order being granted. That change would bring the law in Scotland into line with the provisions outlined in the UK Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill, which has been debated at Westminster over recent months, and it would therefore bring the law in Scotland into line with that of the rest of the UK.

Edward Mountain said that he believed that that would mean that the landlord would pay double council tax, but, of course, that is not the position when there is an attempt to sell a property. No doubt, we can come back to that later if the member does not accept that point.

Amendment 289 seeks to strengthen the criminal law in relation to wrongful termination. That offence criminalises the act of intentionally misleading a tenant into ceasing to occupy a let property and misleading the First-tier Tribunal into issuing an eviction order. Of course, there are already criminal offences relating to such matters, but amendment 289 would increase the maximum penalties for such offences, which would be appropriate in situations involving repeat offenders. There are already offences for unlawful eviction, and the amendment would simply strengthen the law in this area, increasing the penalties.

Both of my amendments are supported by Living Rent and other campaigns.

I will speak to amendment 293, in my name. The bill allows tenants in a joint tenancy to give notice without the consent of the remaining tenants, which is an important improvement to prevent tenants from being trapped in a tenancy. My amendment 293 would provide greater protection for the remaining tenants, as well as the ability to transfer the joint tenancy to someone else.

That would, I hope, allow more flexibility for people in shared tenancies and the potential for easier transitions between tenancies. The amendment is supported by campaigns such as Living Rent. The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland also supports the amendment because it is worried that the bill’s provisions to allow one tenant to leave a tenancy do not provide a

“guarantee that the remaining tenant would be able to continue the tenancy”,

and could therefore leave

“more single parent households facing homelessness.”

Living Rent, Scottish Women’s Aid and other campaigns have raised that point, too. It has been a problem in England and Wales and has been reported on by the National Housing Federation, the Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. We should not risk going down that path in Scotland.

Amendment 293 would allow at least one party in a joint tenancy to remain in the house. There is not a guarantee on that in the bill as it is currently drafted, so my amendment would strengthen the law and deal with the situation.

In addition, the bill does not prevent a landlord from changing the conditions of a tenancy for the remaining tenants, and my amendment would address that issue also.