Seòmar agus comataidhean

There have been a number of consultations. Looking back, I remember what was said at the time when I was on the committee. I have probably met the ASSC on about a dozen occasions. We have spoken to the short-term let providers—the trade groups such as the STA, as well as Airbnb and other such organisations. We have spoken to the industry advice group and I have met it on a number of occasions. That group includes VisitScotland and other stakeholders.

I have also spoken to and met the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators, as have my officials—I might bring my officials in to speak about their broader consultation as well. SOLAR represents the local authorities in Scotland. We have therefore had feedback on the particular point from across the whole group of stakeholders. That includes individual authorities within SOLAR, because it is partly about their individual interpretations of the scheme and how they see it. Different local authorities will have different aspects and issues that they would like us to deal with. It was really important to meet SOLAR so that I could listen to people who are on the ground and hear about the impact.

We have heard from stakeholders ranging from individual groups, such as the ASSC, to those who represent the broader sector, such as VisitScotland and the industry advice group, along with local authorities. We have tried to cover as broad a range as possible. That is my involvement, but I will bring in Jess Niven if that is okay, convener, to talk about officials’ engagement on a daily and weekly basis and the broader work that has been going on.

When it comes to provisional licences, I remember that, when I was a member of the committee, an issue was raised about the financing aspect and what was required in that regard. At the time, there were applicants who had had issues with their lenders, and the committee took evidence on that. I have also spoken to other stakeholders about that point, including the Scottish Tourism Alliance and the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers. There was an issue in relation to finding finance, particularly for people who were new to the business. There was an accumulation of evidence that indicated that we should make it easier for people in that position to proceed.

That is the main thing that we are trying to do. We will work with stakeholders on that. That is an issue that has been raised over a period of time. It is important that we try to get people into the sector.

There are a number of things. Returning to your previous question, I add that we spoke to two other groups as well. We met the Edinburgh International Festival and Edinburgh Festival Fringe Society, and we had a joint meeting with them and the City of Edinburgh Council to clarify their understanding. We worked closely with them in that regard, because Edinburgh is a major city and the festival is literally just weeks away. We will meet them again after the festival period to analyse what it looked like from their side.

The broader point is that it is an iterative process and the legislation is still in a transitional period. The key things that we have acted on are the key measures that were picked up on, and we have tried to reflect those in the draft order.

The other key thing was to be cognisant of the impact on tourism more broadly. Again, we have had meetings in that regard—we have spoken to VisitScotland and tourism officials to get that other perspective. It is not just about the safety aspect. That is the main point of the order, but we also want to ensure that there is no detrimental impact in the tourism figures that come through. In that regard, what we have seen so far has been reasonably encouraging. One of the key things for me is to try to strike that balance in the interpretation of where we need to go with this.

It is very much an iterative process, and I think that I have shown that in the engagement with the sector. We have met the ASSC approaching a dozen times. We have also met other stakeholders—SOLAR and others—on a number of occasions, and we will continue to do that. I think that I have mentioned before that I am happy to come back to the committee at any stage to discuss the issues and the impact of the legislation as we see that coming through. I think that we have struck the right balance, but it is very much an iterative process.

That brings me back to the point that I made about Edinburgh. We have another meeting planned with the festival, the fringe and the council after the festival period in order to, almost, analyse the impact on the Edinburgh festivals, which are some of our biggest festivals with regard to tourism. There is a broader question about what the scale of the festival and the fringe should be and what the capacity of the city is in that regard. We have already agreed to meet the festival, the fringe and the council again after the events in August to interpret that. If we need to make changes accordingly, we will do so.

There is a broader overview when an application comes through. Jess Niven mentioned the fit-and-proper person test, for example, which is one element of it. If you are talking about a larger organisation taking over single individuals, that would be a much bigger issue. Local authorities would still assess an application during the application process and they would be aware if there was a particular issue along the lines of the scenario that you mentioned. There is enough in the current guidelines to allow local authorities to pick up on any such instances and deal with any issues. I do not think that that would come out of the blue, if you know what I mean. Craig McGuffie wants to come in on that.

They should take place as part of that. Again, when I had a discussion with the City of Edinburgh Council, we discussed what period of time we were talking about, and Edinburgh’s own interpretation of the scheme and how that worked.

To go back to the local position as against the national position, Glasgow City Council obviously feels that it is in a particular position. I am happy to discuss that individual position with Glasgow, although it has not been raised with me specifically. I am happy to pick that up.

I will bring in Jessica Niven to see whether she is aware of the point that you make, but it has not been raised with me. Nevertheless, that may be Glasgow’s interpretation. Jessica, do you have anything else to add on that? Are you aware of that point?

That comes back to the financing of some of the schemes. I come from a background of working for the Bank of Scotland for 20 years and I know that, when someone is trying to finance a project, the certainty that a bank has around planning and licensing risks is important in, first, whether the financing is available at all, and, secondly, how that financing is priced. The ability to have a provisional licence gives more security to an applicant and to the bank that the applicant is going to get a licence, which means that the applicant is more likely to get the funding and that the funding will be priced at a less risky point—it might be 4 per cent over base instead of 6 per cent over base.

The provision comes from feedback that we got from applicants who want to come into the sector and have concerns about how they will know that they are doing everything right at any particular stage, so that the application goes through the process and they end up with a full licence. The provisional licence helps with the process. It makes it cheaper and easier for people to get into short-term letting. As I said, the provision is based on feedback that we received, and my banking background enables me to understand where applicants are coming from on that point.

There are a number of points to make in that respect. Again, it comes back to those really important discussions that we have had with SOLAR. There have been lots of discussions with that organisation prior to today; lots of discussions are on-going; and there will be lots of discussions with it beyond this. I will bring in Jess Niven to talk about the operational discussions that have gone on, but I have certainly had meetings with SOLAR on this matter, and if any clarity is required or if any issues arise with regard to outstanding applications, we will obviously continue to work with the local authorities on that. However, we are continuing to have discussions on the matter. Jess, do you want to add anything about the almost day-to-day operational discussions that go on with local authorities?

Thanks, Andy. I suppose that it comes back to local authorities having flexibility on that. I understand why some stakeholders have raised the point, but it is important that local authorities have that flexibility. We have already met the ASSC to speak about those specific points, and Ivan McKee, who is recently in post, and I will meet the ASSC again to discuss this and any other specific issues that it might have.

There are a number of things there, Mr Griffin. One question is whether we decide to go down the legislative route for the other issues that have been raised. Something might require an SSI or guidelines, and we will continue to discuss that. We have brought forward what we have brought forward to try to address all the key issues that were raised when I was in committee and between when we brought the scheme and where we are now.

We will continue to look at the evidence in the figures for short-term lets and the accommodation in the sector. I know that anecdotal statements have been made, but I will continue to engage with the expert group on the evidence that comes through. If I need to, I will introduce legislation or guidelines at a time when I think that it would be relevant to support the sector on that. I have made it clear that I am happy to engage with the committee at any time on what is being brought forward, whether that is through correspondence or whatever.

The approach is very much one of continuing the discussions. The establishment of the expert group indicates that we are really willing to do that. The engagement that I have had will continue, even beyond the transitional phase.

It would be difficult to put a timeline on it as such, but if we collectively feel that we need to introduce amended guidance or legislation, that will be done at the time that I think it would be relevant to do that.

Why we are bringing these things forward now is one of the key questions that have been asked. There are different opinions in the sector about what is important. The STA, as I mentioned, thinks that the measures strike the right balance, but it is an on-going dialogue. I think that they have struck the right balance.

Yes. Pretty early on, we had feedback from the sector about what the transfer scheme would look like. It would have been a relatively straightforward process, but the feedback suggested that we should make it simpler and more flexible, so that if someone wanted to transfer a licence to a family member or anybody else, they could do that. Jess Niven noted that if a licence was being transferred and there were little or no changes, the process should be pretty straightforward. Obviously, if there had been a material change, as with planning, there would need to be an updated description to ensure that the safety of the premises was not affected. Jess, do you want to add anything on that?