Chamber and committees

Let us just say that we wanted to redraft section 5 of the bill and that we wanted to take out the term “reasonable period” and put in a period of time—a week, two days, 10 days, 30 days or whatever. Is there a period that you feel would define “reasonable”?

I will have one more bite of the cherry and push a wee bit further. Despite the issues that have been raised by different parties on the complexity of the new rules on giving notice, will the rules work quite well in practice, once they get going and everyone is used to them?

I will pick up on your final point. You said at the very start, and it is obvious, that the law is complex at the moment, and part of the aim of the bill is to try to simplify the law for practitioners and for tenants and small businesses, but I think that section 4 and section 5 leave some ambiguity. You just said that you do not think that those provisions could be drafted any more clearly. Will you explain why?

Good morning, and thank you for coming along. I want to move on to sections 2 to 7 of the bill, on the statutory code. How will it work in practice, day to day?

My next question is for Steven Blane and Kieran Buxton. Is the day-to-day practice working? It may not be clear from an academic legal perspective, but are things working in practice? Are we in danger of making things more complicated in practice for both the landlord and the tenant?

I return to Carolyne Hair of the Law Society. We will get into the detail of the bill in a moment through our questions. First, considering the bill holistically and taking an overview, do you think that it goes too far and brings about too much change? I was not quite sure what your position was regarding the general principles of the bill. Is it too wide in its scope, and does it need to be pared back?

We might seek to amend the bill; I am just trying to get some expertise from practitioners. If I were to lodge a stage 2 amendment to stipulate “28 days”, “30 days” or “50 days”, what would be reasonable, from a practitioner’s perspective?

On that issue—others can pick this up—we heard that, in other jurisdictions, there is a much more fixed way of doing it. For example, there can be a 30-day period. Not necessarily from a practitioner’s point of view, but from the perspective of your clients, would that be too much of a change to the law?

Carolyne, I appreciate that you have not consulted your members, so you might not want to answer that question.

The bill will be looked at next by the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, and I understand that our deputy convener has lodged an amendment for consideration by that committee. In some ways, it would have been helpful if we had been able to debate that amendment today in the light of the amendments in this group, but that is simply the way in which the procedure works. The deputy convener’s amendment, which I hope will be accepted by that committee, would strengthen how we take things forward.

With regard to my amendment 1031, I will be slightly critical of us, as a committee, in that I do not think that we have made enough effort to look at how the pilot schemes will work. Those schemes will be essential if we are to get this right. With respect, I say to the minister that he and the Government are dragging their feet in that regard.

There was an announcement, and the Parliament has approved a substantial amount of money to take the pilot schemes forward. However, my understanding is that, as of the Easter recess, no local authority area had been identified, and there has been very little progress in that regard. I understand that the pilot schemes have to go out to tender under the appropriate legal procedures, but I worry that we will not see them up and running until perhaps even late this year. If they are then going to run, how will they be reviewed, and how will we see how they are working in practice?

That is why I support Maggie Chapman’s two amendments in the group. We are going into fresh waters here. It is all very well for us to put the legislation in place, but the Parliament has, for a number of years, been criticised for its lack of post-legislative scrutiny. We are not good at that, and it is very possible that, having seen how the pilot projects work, we will see that the legislation is not working in practice and that substantial changes need to be made.

My amendment 1031 would simply provide for a report by the Scottish Government on the pilot projects to be put forward. I think that it would be helpful for the Parliament in order to give this committee, and the committee with its remit that will be formed in the next session of the Parliament, an opportunity to look at whether the provisions are working in practice.

I am interested in hearing where the minister thinks we are with regard to the pilot projects and how long he thinks they will operate for. Depending on his reflections, I will decide what to do with my amendment. In addition, there needs to be more engagement between the committee and the Government on the pilot projects, and I hope that that can happen after we get through the formal stage of the bill process.