Chamber and committees

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.

I will press amendment 293. It is clear that there is a gap in the law in this area, as social landlords have highlighted, and the changes in the bill bring the issue to the fore. I met the cabinet secretary before and after the amendment deadlines and made it very clear that I was happy to try to work together. We need to address the issue and we have the opportunity to address it in the bill. We need legislation. I will be raising the issue in further amendments in later groups. I urge members to vote for amendment 293.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not vote. I would have voted no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My vote is yes.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will make a direct award to the Ferguson Marine shipyard for the replacement of MV Lord of the Isles. (S6O-04952)

Given that such lifeline ferries are critical infrastructure, will the Scottish Government consider a direct award under section 45 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022? I am sure that the United Kingdom Government would be willing to work with the Scottish Government on that, given that it has already made representations in relation to procurement law.

Alternatively, if the Scottish Government is going to put the contract out to tender, will it look at what is happening in other parts of the UK, where the UK Government is placing a minimum 10 per cent social value weighting element into the assessment of bids for shipbuilding contracts? That is not happening in Scotland, so will the Scottish Government look to include such an element in any tendering process?

It is not just about throughcare—I have raised the experience of prisoners both serving their sentences and coming to their release. There seem to be inconsistencies of approach throughout the estate. Is it fair to say that?

I want to come in on a different issue.