Seòmar agus comataidhean

I lodged amendments 232 and 232A and the other amendments in this group because long leases are a matter of unfinished business for the Parliament. Long leases are leases that, at their start, were of more than 175 years and where the rent is nominal, at £100 or less per year, which is sometimes known as peppercorn rent. Long leases put tenants in a position of de facto ownership, despite not having the status of legal ownership over the property or the rights that flow from that. Therefore, long lease tenants are deprived of the full enjoyment of the property through an ability to sell it or pass it on to a loved one, for example.

This set of amendments on long lease reforms has arisen from casework, because, due to a historical anomaly, the remaining long leases in Scotland are heavily concentrated in the three towns area of North Ayrshire in my region—the towns being Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston. The situation remains even after the Long Leases (Scotland) Act 2012 of this Parliament sought to address the issue. The 2012 act converted some but not all residential long leases into ownership. My amendments in this group seek to extend the ability to obtain ownership rights to long lease tenants who did not benefit from the 2012 act, which is those whose long lease had less than a century to run, as of 2015.

Amendments 232, 232A, 234, 235 and 236 would establish a scheme by which qualifying long lease rights can be converted into ownership rights. The amendments seek to address the comparative disadvantage that is currently faced by long lease tenants whose tenancies were not covered under the 2012 act because there was less than a century until their expiration—we can all acknowledge that a century is an awfully long time to deprive somebody of such rights.

Amendment 232 sets out a definition for a qualifying lease along the lines of the 2012 act. However, in this case, it would be a lease that has more than 50 years before it expires. Amendment 232A would give the committee and the Parliament the opportunity to go further and to define it as a lease that has more than five years before it expires. If amendment 232A was agreed to, we would, by and large, finally get rid of long leases in Scotland—I say “by and large” because there is no element of compulsion in here, which is worth emphasising.

Amendment 234 would establish long lease tenants’ rights to apply for the conversion of lease rights into ownership rights, and it would give ministers the power to regulate for the criteria on which an application should be accepted or refused. Again, the provisions are all very similar to the 2012 act but would be extended further to the group who were not covered at that time.

Amendment 235 would establish the process for long lease rights to be converted into ownership rights, and amendment 236 would establish the process for the former landlord to request a compensation payment, with ministers regulating for the specifics of that process as well.

By and large, the amendments simply replicate the 2012 act to cover the group of long lease tenants who were not covered at that point because their leases still had a century left to run. If members agree to that in principle, which I hope they do, I would be keen for us to go as far as possible and to apply the provisions to all long leases that have more than five years left. That would get us pretty close to the point of getting rid of this very odd historical anachronism. However, by default, voting for amendment 232 would agree to the measure in principle and allow us to make progress and, I believe, cover the majority of those who still have a long lease in Scotland by applying the provisions to all those who have more than 50 years before their lease expires.

I move amendments 232 and 232A.

I understand entirely the A1P1 considerations, which come up an awful lot in the Parliament, and rightly so. However, I am interested to understand the considerations that led to 100 years being set as the threshold—I presume that the decision was based on case law. However, my understanding is that it was a somewhat arbitrary number on the basis of taking a very cautious approach, given that the 2012 act was the first time that the inequality of long leases had been addressed. Given that there have been no court proceedings that have challenged the act—or any individual cases that were successful—my suggestion is that the Government’s position that 100 years is necessary to maintain the A1P1 rights of landlords is based on an incredibly risk-averse assumption rather than on case law from elsewhere, for example.

I have pretty much covered the issue already. Although I understand the Government’s reticence around issues relating to A1P1 rights, I emphasise that my understanding is that the threshold of a century that was set by the 2012 act was, ultimately, an arbitrary one that was based on a particularly cautious interpretation of the legal challenges that might arise. Those legal challenges did not arise, and so the threshold is one of those odd historical anomalies and injustices that needs to be rectified. It particularly affects my constituents in the three towns in North Ayrshire, but it also affects a scattering of people elsewhere in Scotland.

Although I entirely understand the Government’s approach, and I am therefore happy not to press amendment 232A, I will press amendment 232, because I think that the 50-year threshold is entirely defensible on the basis of balancing the landlord’s A1P1 rights with the rights of the long-lease renter or tenant.

That is correct.

Amendment 232A, by agreement, withdrawn.

Unlike Graham Simpson, I am probably going to disappoint everybody by saying that my amendments in the group are not the last ones that I will speak to, but we are getting close to the end of mine.

Together, amendments 189 and 195 would require ministers to establish a scheme for public bodies to act as guarantors for young people who are estranged from their families. That reflects the fact that many young renters, particularly students, have to provide a guarantor when they enter a private tenancy. In practice, the vast majority of the time, for Scotland-domiciled students, or for UK-domiciled students, that role is often fulfilled by a family member—typically a parent.

The scheme would deliver on a recommendation from a piece of research that the Government commissioned on the barriers that are faced by estranged students. That was published in 2022, but it has not yet been actioned. Guarantor requirements are often used in a discriminatory manner but, as long as those requirements exist, that small but vulnerable group of people should be supported. It is a sad reality that, for some young people, moving away from home for the first time for university or another reason is their first opportunity to escape an abusive family or home situation. Guarantor schemes act as a massive barrier to that, and they often allow abusers to maintain a position of power over young people into their adult life. Some universities already operate their own guarantor schemes, which is fantastic, but it is far from being the case that all universities do that.

This is the missing piece of the puzzle in support for estranged young people in particular. We have seen improvements in other areas, such as student support funding, which was campaigned for and won by Councillor Blair Anderson based on his personal experience of abuse and estrangement. He has worked with me on the amendments, which would make a huge difference for a small but really vulnerable group of young people who face a very particular barrier to being able to secure housing and escape from often unsafe home situations.

Amendment 189 would require ministers to set up such a scheme. Amendment 195 is simply a consequential amendment that sets out that the regulations that were relevant to that provision would come under the affirmative procedure.

I will wait to hear how the cabinet secretary is going to tie all that off before deciding whether to move my amendments in this group. However, on the point about financial uncertainty, it is worth putting on the record that my understanding is that, if every estranged student in Scotland made use of the rent guarantor scheme in a single year and defaulted, the cost would still be less than £10 million. In practice, there will never be a situation in which every estranged young person or student needs the scheme and where they all default at the same time.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise such a level of financial risk is one of dozens of examples of financial risk that the Scottish Government is able to successfully carry every year? In the grand scheme of a Government budget, not even a £10 million cost with not even close to a £10 million risk is perfectly manageable.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for laying that out. For clarity, is she suggesting that there is a way to legislate to make existing processes and schemes more consistent across the country? For example, could we work together on lodging an amendment at stage 3, or is she suggesting that we should try to improve the current non-legislative approach and that she will attempt to reassure us that there is an adequate non-legislative solution to that ahead of stage 3?

I am confused about the point about consistency. Local government is not just another set of public bodies; they are 32 governments, and that level of government has been given responsibility for the landlord register. The argument about its being helpful to have consistency across the country somewhat flies in the face of the fact that councils can set their own rate of council tax. Indeed, the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024, which we have just passed in this Parliament, allows them to set their own rate for that levy, and the point that was made in relation to a cruise ship levy is also about local authorities being able to set a rate that is relevant to them.

There is a whole range of other measures whereby local authorities can set a rate—whether for fees, charges, taxes or so on—that suits their local context. I am struggling to see how the Government’s position can be reconciled with the Verity house agreement that this Government signed.

I understand entirely the cabinet secretary’s position, although I suggest that the Scottish Government often takes a risk-averse approach to the extreme in A1P1 cases. I am happy not to press the amendments, if the Government can commit to some kind of consideration and review of whether there is justification for expanding the provisions of the 2012 act to those whose leases were not covered at the time—those whose lease was more than a century at the time and is over 50 years at this point. Does the Government have any interest in considering the situation of those who were missed by the 2012 act, or is that not an area that it wishes to explore?

I have one final question for all of you. It touches in particular on Carolyn Currie’s earlier point about women-led businesses consistently not being engaged or not getting the same level of engagement.

Having defined roles on the apprenticeship committee provides a space for employers. Over the years, leading up to the current situation, I have picked up from feedback a feeling that, while some employers, trade bodies and so on in certain sectors do very well out of the current system and feel very well represented and that their voice is heard, other folk feel—whether it is because of the nature of their sector or the demographics of the business owners—that they cannot even get their foot in the door. Vikki Manson touched on that a little in talking about where the skills gaps are.

How do we build a structure to make sure that the system is hearing the voices of the people who cannot, as it stands, get their foot in the door; who are not happy with the current system; and whose feedback has, in many ways, led to the introduction of the bill before us?