���˿���

We touched on that earlier—the codification in the bill brings all the different parts together to make it more accessible to tenants and landlords. It is all in one place. Michael, do you want to add any more?

My view is that the law in that area needs reform.

Different views have been given about what the Rockford Trilogy case involved. Some legal professionals have welcomed the decision, whereas others have not. For some, the decision brings certainty but, for others, it means that the negotiations between the tenant and the landlord at the end of the lease are fraught with difficulties and uncertainties. The committee heard from Steven Blane that the Rockford Trilogy case had added complexity to parties’ negotiations when a lease is coming to an end. The provisions in the bill on giving clear and certain notice in those situations should, in my view, be preferred.

Your original question whether the law needs to be reformed has come up several times in the committee’s evidence sessions. I have seen the responses of some of the legal practitioners and academics to the committee’s calls for views who have said that reform is not needed because the law is well known and works in practice. However, the committee has also heard from representatives of tenants and landlords who say that reform is welcome. The Federation of Small Businesses Scotland told the committee that small businesses welcomed the bill’s

“attempt to modernise ... the legislation”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 6 May 2025; c 25.]

on the termination of commercial leases. The Scottish Property Federation also welcomed the bill and supports bringing together in one place various pieces of common law and statute. The Scottish Law Commission said that, as far back as 2010, it

“was approached by practitioners and solicitors in the commercial leasing area who indicated that the law should be reformed as it was uncertain and was acting as a deterrent to commercial property investment.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 29 April 2025; c 5.]

Taking those together, the law of termination of commercial leases needs reform. As it stands, the bill delivers that, but, as I have said previously, I am happy to work with the committee on it.

Yes. You will be aware that the three main types of leases that we have in Scotland are agricultural, residential and commercial. The bill specifically looks at the commercial aspect. To widen it would probably be a huge job and require another bill. When the SLC considered it, it was specifically tailored for commercial leases. That is why those are the only types of leases that are covered in the bill. Perhaps Michael Paparakis has something to add to that.

Thank you, Mr Kidd. I do not agree that all sections of the bill that deal with notice are too complex. The current law already lacks clarity and certainty, so the bill will resolve that issue. The bill provides a short list of essential requirements for a notice to quit and a notice of intention to quit, which offers the flexibility to deal with the wide set of circumstances that are likely to be encountered by the landlords and the tenants in practice.

I know that the Scottish Property Federation told the committee that it does not see those provisions being

“any more difficult to follow”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 6 May 2025; c 32.]

than the current rules.

Moving forward, if there are any suggestions in the stage 1 committee report on how things could be simplified, I am happy to consider them.

The bill is still in the very early stages. You have just had your latest evidence session and I welcome the committee’s scrutiny of the bill. I will take on board everything that you have said. I do not know whether, at this stage, I will commit that the bill will be heavily amended throughout stage 2—I am not able to tell you that. However, interesting things have been brought up that could be advantageous to the bill with regard to simplifying things, which I am willing to consider and write to the committee on. Michael, is there something that we could do to assist the committee in the scrutiny of the bill moving forward?

To respond to that point, one of the main aims of the bill is to simplify the process and make it easier for tenants and landlords to navigate.

Not at that stage. I want to consider the letter and then also consider the committee’s stage 1 report.

That section of the bill proposes that dog theft becomes a prescribed offence and that any court that the case is heard in is deemed to be a prescribed court. I know that that was raised in the previous evidence session on the bill, but victim impact statements are not currently available in any summary court case. At that evidence session, Laura Buchan also informed the committee that the victim impact statement scheme currently relates only to solemn cases, which means cases that are prosecuted in the sheriff and jury courts or in the High Court. The scheme also does not apply to all solemn cases; it currently includes only those cases that involve violence, sexual offences and housebreaking.

The consultation on the bill did not ask any specific questions about allowing victims to make statements about the effect of the crime or of their going to court. Although I note Mr Golden’s comments in his letter, the Scottish Government considers that it requires further information from Mr Golden on why that would be an appropriate approach, including on how that would fit with the existing approaches to the use of such statements in the criminal justice system.

To be honest, dog theft has not really come up in my engagement. When the XL bully issue arose in 2023, I had regular engagement with all stakeholders across the UK on a monthly basis. Because of the XL bully issue, the heightened state around the issue and everything that has happened since, that was the main topic at the summit. However, it was not only about XL bullies. We were looking at the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which is reserved, and there is also quite a bit of legislation in Scotland. We looked at how we could tie that up moving forward, which is one of the longer-term aims of the advisory group.

During the Easter break, I watched the evidence session in which that issue was brought up. The Scottish Government does not have any views on that. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing states:

“Theft is defined as the taking and/or appropriating of property belonging to another, without the owner's consent, with the intention to deprive them of its use. Abduction is a common law offence in Scotland and is defined as carrying off or confining a person against their will and without legal authority.”

We are comfortable with the offence of dog theft being used in the bill, but it will be up to the committee to scrutinise that and see whether it is comfortable with it, too.