Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do you accept the point that there needs to be something short of that? It is—quite appropriately—often not used, because it would make the situation worse. However, the SFC needs to have other tools at its disposal.

I have one final point to make for clarity, which is one that Universities Scotland raised in its evidence on the threshold for information sharing—this goes back to John Mason's line of questioning. Universities Scotland pointed out that there is a bit of inconsistency—there certainly is in the explanatory notes—on the general principle of when information should be shared, which seems to have been set at quite a high threshold. Sir Paul Grice of Universities Scotland felt that the examples seem to be at a lower threshold than the principle that had been set out.

Universities Scotland was seeking a bit of clarity. It would like an initial statement of clarity from the Government, but also for greater clarity to be put into the bill or an assurance about the level of clarity that will be put into the relevant regulations if such clarity is not put into the bill.

I very much support the proposed change, which I think will significantly improve college governance. However, could you provide a bit of clarity on what the impact will be on the handful of staff who are involved? Much as this is the right move when it comes to overall governance and efficiency, the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board has some brilliant and highly skilled staff, whose individual contributions have added a lot to the sector in recent years. Are they to be transferred to the individual colleges?

Amendment 454 is a simple one: it seeks to devolve to local authorities the ability to set fees for registration with a landlord register. We talk about “the” landlord register, but there are 32 landlord registers—there is a single national letting agent register for Scotland, the responsibility for which sits with the Scottish ministers; the responsibility for landlord registers sits with 32 local authorities. Most members in the room are former councillors, and I am sure that they can think of many occasions on which they chafed at having decisions micromanaged for them by the Scottish Government.

I see this as being a simple matter of policy coherence: if it is the responsibility of the local authority to maintain the register, surely we should give the local authority the ability to set something as basic as the registration fee. We could have political commentary around whatever rate it set it at—I hope that that would not be the case, given how minor an administrative matter this is—but the point is that the responsibility for setting the fee should sit with the elected representatives to whom we have given responsibility for the register. Amendment 454 would devolve that to our colleagues in local government, in line with the Verity house agreement.

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.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a member of the Church of Scotland. My understanding is that the Church of Scotland is keen to have this issue debated because it has a number of properties that it would like to make available due to long-term ministry vacancies, but it would obviously still require those properties when the ministry vacancies are filled. However, it has found it challenging to engage with the Scottish Government on this issue. Would the cabinet secretary be amenable to a discussion with the Church of Scotland about how its considerable property portfolio can be used to help tackle the housing crisis, given the limitations on that portfolio?

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.