Chamber and committees

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for laying that out. For clarity, is she suggesting that there is a way to legislate to make existing processes and schemes more consistent across the country? For example, could we work together on lodging an amendment at stage 3, or is she suggesting that we should try to improve the current non-legislative approach and that she will attempt to reassure us that there is an adequate non-legislative solution to that ahead of stage 3?

I understand entirely the cabinet secretary’s position, although I suggest that the Scottish Government often takes a risk-averse approach to the extreme in A1P1 cases. I am happy not to press the amendments, if the Government can commit to some kind of consideration and review of whether there is justification for expanding the provisions of the 2012 act to those whose leases were not covered at the time—those whose lease was more than a century at the time and is over 50 years at this point. Does the Government have any interest in considering the situation of those who were missed by the 2012 act, or is that not an area that it wishes to explore?

Amendment 454 is a simple one: it seeks to devolve to local authorities the ability to set fees for registration with a landlord register. We talk about “the” landlord register, but there are 32 landlord registers—there is a single national letting agent register for Scotland, the responsibility for which sits with the Scottish ministers; the responsibility for landlord registers sits with 32 local authorities. Most members in the room are former councillors, and I am sure that they can think of many occasions on which they chafed at having decisions micromanaged for them by the Scottish Government.

I see this as being a simple matter of policy coherence: if it is the responsibility of the local authority to maintain the register, surely we should give the local authority the ability to set something as basic as the registration fee. We could have political commentary around whatever rate it set it at—I hope that that would not be the case, given how minor an administrative matter this is—but the point is that the responsibility for setting the fee should sit with the elected representatives to whom we have given responsibility for the register. Amendment 454 would devolve that to our colleagues in local government, in line with the Verity house agreement.

I lodged amendments 232 and 232A and the other amendments in this group because long leases are a matter of unfinished business for the Parliament. Long leases are leases that, at their start, were of more than 175 years and where the rent is nominal, at £100 or less per year, which is sometimes known as peppercorn rent. Long leases put tenants in a position of de facto ownership, despite not having the status of legal ownership over the property or the rights that flow from that. Therefore, long lease tenants are deprived of the full enjoyment of the property through an ability to sell it or pass it on to a loved one, for example.

This set of amendments on long lease reforms has arisen from casework, because, due to a historical anomaly, the remaining long leases in Scotland are heavily concentrated in the three towns area of North Ayrshire in my region—the towns being Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston. The situation remains even after the Long Leases (Scotland) Act 2012 of this Parliament sought to address the issue. The 2012 act converted some but not all residential long leases into ownership. My amendments in this group seek to extend the ability to obtain ownership rights to long lease tenants who did not benefit from the 2012 act, which is those whose long lease had less than a century to run, as of 2015.

Amendments 232, 232A, 234, 235 and 236 would establish a scheme by which qualifying long lease rights can be converted into ownership rights. The amendments seek to address the comparative disadvantage that is currently faced by long lease tenants whose tenancies were not covered under the 2012 act because there was less than a century until their expiration—we can all acknowledge that a century is an awfully long time to deprive somebody of such rights.

Amendment 232 sets out a definition for a qualifying lease along the lines of the 2012 act. However, in this case, it would be a lease that has more than 50 years before it expires. Amendment 232A would give the committee and the Parliament the opportunity to go further and to define it as a lease that has more than five years before it expires. If amendment 232A was agreed to, we would, by and large, finally get rid of long leases in Scotland—I say “by and large” because there is no element of compulsion in here, which is worth emphasising.

Amendment 234 would establish long lease tenants’ rights to apply for the conversion of lease rights into ownership rights, and it would give ministers the power to regulate for the criteria on which an application should be accepted or refused. Again, the provisions are all very similar to the 2012 act but would be extended further to the group who were not covered at that time.

Amendment 235 would establish the process for long lease rights to be converted into ownership rights, and amendment 236 would establish the process for the former landlord to request a compensation payment, with ministers regulating for the specifics of that process as well.

By and large, the amendments simply replicate the 2012 act to cover the group of long lease tenants who were not covered at that point because their leases still had a century left to run. If members agree to that in principle, which I hope they do, I would be keen for us to go as far as possible and to apply the provisions to all long leases that have more than five years left. That would get us pretty close to the point of getting rid of this very odd historical anachronism. However, by default, voting for amendment 232 would agree to the measure in principle and allow us to make progress and, I believe, cover the majority of those who still have a long lease in Scotland by applying the provisions to all those who have more than 50 years before their lease expires.

I move amendments 232 and 232A.

I understand entirely the A1P1 considerations, which come up an awful lot in the Parliament, and rightly so. However, I am interested to understand the considerations that led to 100 years being set as the threshold—I presume that the decision was based on case law. However, my understanding is that it was a somewhat arbitrary number on the basis of taking a very cautious approach, given that the 2012 act was the first time that the inequality of long leases had been addressed. Given that there have been no court proceedings that have challenged the act—or any individual cases that were successful—my suggestion is that the Government’s position that 100 years is necessary to maintain the A1P1 rights of landlords is based on an incredibly risk-averse assumption rather than on case law from elsewhere, for example.

I have pretty much covered the issue already. Although I understand the Government’s reticence around issues relating to A1P1 rights, I emphasise that my understanding is that the threshold of a century that was set by the 2012 act was, ultimately, an arbitrary one that was based on a particularly cautious interpretation of the legal challenges that might arise. Those legal challenges did not arise, and so the threshold is one of those odd historical anomalies and injustices that needs to be rectified. It particularly affects my constituents in the three towns in North Ayrshire, but it also affects a scattering of people elsewhere in Scotland.

Although I entirely understand the Government’s approach, and I am therefore happy not to press amendment 232A, I will press amendment 232, because I think that the 50-year threshold is entirely defensible on the basis of balancing the landlord’s A1P1 rights with the rights of the long-lease renter or tenant.

That is correct.

Amendment 232A, by agreement, withdrawn.

When it comes to funding apprenticeships, do you have the power to claw money back or to disqualify a provider where there have been fair work issues—for example, where the apprentice has not been treated appropriately or where minimum wage levels have not been adhered to?

Yes—there is definitely a way that we can rebalance the parliamentary week. That goes back to what I said about the value of chamber time. I absolutely agree on the importance of getting out of the building, not only for teamwork and team bonding but for the perspectives that we would get.

I almost pose this as a question, because I am not, and have not been, a committee convener—I know that there are multiple current and former conveners in the room. My understanding, having been a member of multiple committees in the past, is that the challenge in getting authorisation to go outwith this building is often in getting the Conveners Group to sign off on that. That has varied, depending on the composition of the Conveners Group over the decade that I have been here.

Very briefly, on defining committee roles, I think that we could do a lot more at the start of the session, both in how we define the committee roles and in the new member induction.

In its recent review of the Scottish Fiscal Commission, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development clearly recommended more training for all members of Parliament on issues of financial scrutiny. We have certainly been aware of that issue in the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Members on other committees realise that the financial issues around most of what we deal with in Parliament are difficult, but they think, “It’s fine—don’t worry; there will be a financial memorandum, and the finance committee will deal that.” We want every committee to be a finance committee.