���˿���

It is just a suggestion, and I think that any prudent landlord would normally undertake to do that before entering into a lease.

That goes back to your point about raising awareness to simplify things for tenants and landlords. I recognise that the provisions of the bill are important for small businesses and landlords across the country. The changes that will be made by the bill will ensure that the legislation on termination of leases will be brought together in one place and be accessible to all. Stakeholders have been clear that they would like to see the Scottish Government raising awareness of the reforms. I am open to working with representative bodies such as the FSB and the SPF to consider what the Scottish Government can do to ensure that tenants and landlords know that they might be bringing their lease to an end.

As for legal professionals, generally, the familiarisation costs of any change in the law will be incurred by the legal firms that provide training. Such training is typically already provided for within firms’ budgets and the cost of maintaining solicitors’ legal knowledge is covered by fee-earning income. Scottish solicitors are required to undertake 20 hours a year of continuing professional development, and familiarisation training on changes to the law would typically count towards that figure. I am happy to meet representatives and discuss how we can raise awareness of the proposed changes.

No, I have just considered the bill that we are discussing. I do not know whether the SLC has been looking at that in work of a wider scope.

No. Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss the bill.

The drafting of section 5 strikes an appropriate balance, and it will ensure that the law can respond flexibly to an array of circumstances that tenants and landlords might find themselves in. The drafting reflects the current common law, and it will allow the courts to continue to apply the law flexibly in many different situations in which landlords and tenants might find themselves on the termination of a tenancy.

Dr Brown told the committee that what might appear to be ambiguous drafting is likely, in practice, to provide flexibility. I know that some stakeholders suggested that “reasonable period” should be replaced with a specific timeframe, such as 28 days or 30 days, but I disagree. Such a rigid rule cannot take into account all circumstances that parties to a lease might find themselves in. There could be many reasons why a landlord might fail to take steps within 28 days or 30 days—for example, they might be away on holiday or have an illness or incapacity. That would result in automatic continuation of the tenancy, which would be an unfortunate result, especially if the landlord already had a new tenant lined up.

Yes, of course. My understanding is—

Moving on to the grazing and mowing leases, I know that a number of respondents to the committee’s call for views suggested that section 1 should be clarified with respect to grazing or mowing leases. The provisions in the bill will reflect the existing law and the fact that there are currently grazing leases that fall under common law rather than agricultural legislation. Under section 1, a grazing or mowing lease of less than a year is an agricultural lease and will be excluded from the bill’s provisions. Such leases are included in schedule 1, which deals with leases that do not automatically continue. However, grazing leases exist that are not defined as agricultural under the current legislation. Those can be dealt with. If not, the common law of tacit relocation would continue to apply to them after any provisions of the bill come into force.

I will move on to telecoms infrastructure, such as wind farms and electricity substations. There are already two parallel processes for the termination of telecoms leases under the current legal framework. Currently, parties have to satisfy themselves as to whether the electronic communications code applies. If not, common law will apply. If any provisions of the bill come into force, those will apply rather than common law. Members may recall, from the committee’s work on the recent SLC bills, the idea of specific legislation applying in circumstances where there is more legislation. This is just another extremely technical example of where a specific code applies even when there is more general provision within the bill.

If we are looking at clarifying the application to heritable property, the Law Society of Scotland has suggested that it could be made clearer in the bill that it does not apply to leases of movable property. My officials are looking into this specific issue, and we will speak to the Law Society to get more information on it. I will write to the committee ahead of the stage 1 debate with information on that issue and on anything that we intend to take further.

I have not personally sent any communication. My officials might have had conversations that I am not aware of.

An issue was raised about charity accommodation for veterans and care leavers. Residential leases in general are excluded from the scope of the bill. Sometimes, leases such as holiday lets are covered, and the SLC is clear in its report about the reasons why they are not excluded. We know that the centre for Scots law has raised an issue about leases of accommodation that are provided by charities for veterans, which are not excluded under the bill in so far as termination is concerned and would be caught up in the bill’s provisions. I intend to review the matter, and I will write to the committee ahead of the stage 1 debate.

On mixed-use leases, I note that it is already possible to have a mixed-use lease under current law. For example, one part of a lease can be regulated by agricultural legislation while the other part can be subject to the common law. The bill does not create that issue. If a mixed-use lease is entered into after any provisions come into force, parties or their advisers would simply deal with the issue in the same way that they currently do. Parties would have to satisfy themselves as to whether other legislation applies. If it does not, the provisions of the bill would apply. That is what they have to do under the current law.

One way to prevent that would be to prohibit mixed-use leases, but that would likely affect the flexibility of commercial arrangements, and I do not think that it would be necessary to do so.

Would you like me to move on to other issues? I have quite a bit here.

On the Faculty of Advocates’ comments, I know that the organisation criticised the general approach to the definition of commercial leases at stage 1, arguing that it does not make sense to have the automatic continuation for commercial leases and the common law of tacit relocation for other leases.

The majority of respondents to the committee’s call for views were content with the approach, although they had questions about certain types of leases being included or excluded, and noted that, if automatic continuation were to be extended beyond commercial leases, that would be a significant extension and would require extremely careful consideration. That issue was not raised when the SLC was consulting on it or in any written response in the discussion paper preceding its recommendations.

If I may, I will address a few of the issues that came up during your stage 1 evidence-gathering sessions. I could mention where we are with them at this point and what we will be doing moving forward. Would you like me to cover those?