Seòmar agus comataidhean

As Stephen said, that very much follows the procedure in the rest of the UK.

There are a number of things to say in response to that. On step change, earlier on, we set out what we are doing. If we go back to the previous year, we had to get in place the legislation because, without that, there were some things that we just did not have the ability to do. Following that, one key thing was building on the partnership with the developers, and it was really important to ensure that we were all in agreement about work that was to be carried out. The work was carried out to that level, and could be inspected and looked at by the tenants. For example, if they wanted an independent assessment of it, that was carried out. That was an important part.

We are just about there with the remediation contract. That is an incredibly important part, which is about tying developers in legally and setting out exactly what they are liable for and what the Scottish Government’s part in that is.

The other key thing, which I acknowledged at the start of the meeting, is communication. We need to communicate, even if there is not much happening—for example, we might set out what we are working on and that it might take three months. If there is an assessment process or a discussion going on, we need to ensure that people know that, because if there is a void people—quite rightly—will be worried about what is going on. The communications part needs to be picked up as well.

A lot of the building blocks, which have been put in place over the past number of months, will get us to a position that will enable us, when commencement starts at the turn of the year, to really move quickly. You are right—it needs that step change. I acknowledge that we need that, and I said that as part of my comments.

Communications is an incredibly important aspect. We must tell people what is going on. I have had a number of meetings with residents in different parts of Scotland, to try to explain that. We will always be open to doing that.

I hope that what we have laid out earlier today shows that we have made a step change on delivery. We are also looking at things to ensure that we extend the breadth of that. I have met residents. I totally acknowledge that it is an extremely worrying position for them. You have to understand that they are living with that every day. We need to move, and the measures that we have laid out will quicken the pace of delivery.

We are working with the UK and Welsh Governments on the bill because it obviously impacts on us all. We would get royal assent first and then move on to commencement. Mr Coffey touched on the key issue of getting the message out and letting tenants and landlords know about the bill.

I do not whether we have discussed the timescales that the UK and Welsh Governments are talking about, but we are trying to move as soon as possible.

Yes. That was seen as the basis of things, but there were other specific aspects that were agreed with the developers, who were feeding back into the process. It was all about listening to what they were saying and trying to amend the process in light of that. We had a number of meetings over that period of time, but that formed the real basis for taking forward the assessments.

I acknowledge what the UK Government has been doing in England and where it is at. Unlike England, we needed to put a statutory framework in place to allow remediation work to be undertaken, and the safeguards that I mentioned are important. The tenure system is different as there is a lack of a single freeholder for a property.

I acknowledge where England is and where we are. We need to quicken the pace. I acknowledged that during the debate. The reason why we introduced the legislation was to address that very point and to make sure that we have what we need in place legally. We needed a statutory framework, given the different tenure system in Scotland, and that has delayed things.

I acknowledge that we need to quicken the pace. I said that during the debate and I have said it today as well. However, as I have set out, we are learning from the pilot programme how we can quicken the pace going forward, and how we can broaden what we are doing. I am confident that, given what I have set out this morning, we will see the pace quickening quite considerably.

We have not set a date yet. I do not think that the UK Government has set a date for every type of building, either. The UK Government minister who is responsible for cladding wrote to me about what they are doing, and we are in the process of trying to have a discussion around that. I say again that we are working very closely with the UK Government on the Grenfell issue. Obviously, there are related issues.

On what we need to do, I talked about some of the work that we are doing on broadening. We will continue to monitor that as we go ahead, but it is not something that we are doing at this particular moment in time. One of the key things is that we are required to report to Parliament every year. As you know, I am also happy to come to the committee at any stage to discuss cladding. I have made that offer before and I make it again.

In addition to that, I have had numerous meetings with MSP colleagues who are representing their constituents. I have offered those meetings to anybody who thinks that they would be useful, and they have taken place with a number of colleagues and residents.

We have touched on that, but I will clarify the position. A key issue that was raised when I was a member of this committee was on-going monitoring, which is really important. A general point to make is that there has been an on-going process of engagement, which is also really important. We have had a number of meetings with the ASSC, the STA, SOLAR, VisitScotland and the expert group, so that has almost built in informal monitoring. There have been numerous meetings and discussions.

The amendment order, which has been mentioned, demonstrated that we were listening, and we continue to do so. The expert group is very much about listening to the sector, and the implementation update included some responses. The expert group, which includes people who work in the sector, can make recommendations. That shows that we are willing to listen, and, as I said, I will write to the committee on what comes through.

Anita Stewart talked about the timescales. It is not a long period, but it is important that, as we move towards next summer, we think about whether we need to change anything as a result of what the expert group says. We will provide another implementation update in 2025.

It is important to say that it is an on-going process. We have demonstrated that we are listening. As you would expect with any Government, we have not agreed with every comment that has been made, but we have demonstrated that we continue to listen, including to the expert group.

As I said, we will come back to the committee with an update report and if there is anything else that we think we need to do. The expert group’s recommendations will be key, as it might want us to look at some things in more detail. We will consider what the report says and come back to the committee at that stage.

Thank you, convener. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this year’s short-term lets implementation update report and answer questions about the evidence that you have gathered from stakeholders.

I note that the committee received 19 responses in total. Just under half came from local authorities, under a third came from industry organisations and the remainder came from Government bodies, festival organisations and two community groups. Everything included in those responses mirrors views that have already been shared with the Scottish Government. We were confused by a few local authorities saying that we had not involved them, as we had and they contributed to the report. From reading some of the responses that the committee received, I think that there was perhaps a misunderstanding about the engagement that we did for the report and the committee’s call for evidence.

As the report outlines, the feedback that we received broadly fell under the following headings: calls to improve guidance; calls to amend legislation; and asks that were out of scope. We have committed to actions to address the first two areas, and I note that the evidence that you received broadly endorses that approach.

Considerable feedback was gathered from a range of stakeholders and sources. We have been careful not to draw conclusions, as we feel that there is not yet sufficient data available to assess impacts.

The report provides early insights and information on initial short-term licence application levels across Scotland, considers current operational processes and identifies operational improvements, including Scottish Government actions, where appropriate. We have already made operational adjustments to the licensing scheme as a direct result of feedback from a range of stakeholders.

I understand that some groups within the sector want us to halt the present regulation and undertake a review. We have committed to on-going monitoring, but it would not be responsible to review regulation that has only just been implemented and is still in a transitional phase, especially for a sector that has invested in compliance and because licensing is meeting its purpose of ensuring consistent safety standards.

We will continue to work with and listen to stakeholders. I am pleased to inform the committee that, as well as the regular engagement that we already have in place, the first meeting of the guidance expert group that is being facilitated by VisitScotland will take place later this month.

We have already said that we are open to undertaking further consultation once the guidance work concludes. We cannot address that through guidance and we need to gather wider views before deciding how to proceed.

I am happy to answer any questions that the committee has.

I will bring in Anita Stewart in a second because she has been dealing with that as well. When we set out the wider scheme, we talked about bed and breakfasts and guest houses—we have talked about them previously with the committee. With home letting, it was a case of seeing how that settled down. We have issued guidance to local authorities on that point.

The point that I made right at the very start is that the process is all about safety and compliance, which are of paramount importance in what we are looking for. I will bring in Anita Stewart to add to that.