Seòmar agus comataidhean

At this stage, yes.

Do you want to add anything, Michael?

I know that a few suggestions have been made to the committee. I will have to go away and consider them with my officials before I comment on any of them.

The provisions in the bill on oral notice by tenants reflect the law as it is at the moment. For those who think that a tenant should give notice in writing, there is flexibility in the bill to provide for that. It is open to the parties to agree a provision in the lease that written notice must be given to terminate it—section 23 allows for that. To be clear, oral notice can be given by the tenant only when the lease is for less than a year, so that will not apply in all cases.

Leases of less than a year in duration tend to be more informal in nature and do not need to be in writing. They are of particular value to businesses that need flexibility because they are involved in temporary activities or are testing new markets, for example by operating concessions or food stands.

Requiring tenants to give written notice in all circumstances would be a significant change in the current law, and the Scottish Law Commission did not consult on it. It could also create a trap for small business people, who might think that, because they have entered into a lease by way of an oral agreement, they can terminate the lease in the same way, but they might find themselves having to continue to let the premises.

We should reflect on the possible unintended consequences that such a change in the law could have, particularly for small businesses when they are starting out.

Yes.

Yes, I know. My advisers have advised that they do not feel that that will be the case, but if something is flagged up, we will consider it.

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?