Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Yes, I think that all those issues can be considered. I do not know whether there is anything different in your question compared with the original question on the notice period as between landlord and tenant, but we will be considering those aspects, and we will write to the committee about that.

I ask Michael Paparakis to comment on that.

I have not seen any data on those specific figures.

Communication between landlord and tenant is vital, especially when it comes to serving notice and bringing the lease to an end, and sections 27 and 28 will resolve the issues with that.

The committee has heard from the Federation of Small Businesses that, in general, it is common for tenants to have problems in getting in touch with their landlord, and not just in the context of serving a document. I understand that some respondents consider that withholding rent because of a failure to provide a UK address is disproportionate, but a majority of consultees who responded to the SLC consultation on the issue were content with the remedy.

Retention of rent is not the sole remedy for the tenant and, of course, it is open to tenants not to exercise the remedy at all or even to retain only a small proportion of the rent. I also point out that the bill sets out a wide range of circumstances in which the remedy cannot be applied. For example, it cannot be applied if a UK postal address for the party is included in the lease or in certain documents that are registered in the land register or recorded in the register of sasines, where the other party to the lease has been given a copy of the document. Further, the provision does not apply to a body corporate or other legal person with a registered office in the UK, and it does not apply where the duration of the lease is less than a year.

That is similar to the statutory provision for residential leases in England and Wales in section 48(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which addresses the difficulties that residential tenants have when they do not have UK postal addresses for their landlord. I think that the provision will come into force for a very small minority of people who do not have a UK address.

From my understanding, when the Scottish Law Commission drafted the bill, its intention was to make the legislation more accessible, but also to modernise it. I think that someone said that you could google the terminology to find out what it means, but should you need to google a Latin word in 2025?

That is my understanding of the issue. Lori Pidgeon or Michael Paparakis might have further input.