In its report, the committee highlights the wide range of concerns – some fundamental – raised by some stakeholders during the committee’s scrutiny of the bill.

It now calls on the Scottish government to respond to these concerns before the Scottish Parliament debates the general principles of the bill in September, and reserves its position.

The Leases (Automatic Continuation etc.) (Scotland) Bill proposes to reform the law around tacit relocation of some leases, which the bill renames as ‘automatic continuation’, and updates the rules about how they can be ended.

The bill, which is based on work by the Scottish Law Commission (SLC), is focused on the common law rules around tacit relocation, where a commercial lease automatically continues after its expiry date because neither landlord nor tenant has taken steps to end it.

The committee heard that the current law on giving notice is also complex and unclear, with a notice period of 40 days, which the SLC says does not give tenants sufficient time to move to new premises or for landlords to find new tenants. The bill updates the rules on giving notice of the termination of a lease, with a new three-month notice period applying to all leases of six months or longer.

The bill proposes to retain tacit relocation, acknowledging that it can save time and money to automatically continue a lease for a further year. However, the law would be replaced with a new statutory list of what must be included in a notice to end a lease. Also, landlords and tenants in commercial leases would be allowed to agree not to use tacit relocation if they choose.

During evidence, the committee heard strong support for the bill’s goals, especially from some business representatives who want clearer rules. However, it also heard concerns from some legal experts who questioned whether it was the right way to reform the law.

While there was support for the ambition to modernise the law and make it more accessible, the committee also heard that tacit relocation is already a well-developed area of law and recommendations such as changing the language may be ‘slightly harmful rather than helpful’.

Stuart McMillan MSP, convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, said: “We are grateful to all who engaged with the committee during our scrutiny on this bill. We recognise the voices calling for reform and the potential this legislation holds to make the law more accessible to as wide a cross-section of society as possible, including laypeople.

“At the same time, we do not dismiss the concerns of those who question the bill’s necessity and fear it may introduce unnecessary complexity.

“We’re now asking the Scottish government to respond clearly and directly to these fundamental concerns - both about the need for the bill and what amendments it considers necessary.

“We are hopeful that amendments may make the rules less complex should the bill progress to stage two.”