Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not have much to add to what Kate Forbes has said, other than my comments on the record that we appreciate and recognise the extraordinary efforts of council workers and the role that they and many others across the public sector have played in the fight against the pandemic. As Kate Forbes has said, we are not a member of the SJC, and pay negotiations are a matter for local authorities.

As Kate Forbes said, there is a good and very close working relationship with COSLA. As she does, I meet COSLA’s leadership regularly and, as she has done, I have met a number of individual local authority leaders and chief executives. That was really useful in getting into the detail under some of the priorities. Affordable housing is a key priority for nearly all local authorities; we managed to discuss it in those individual meetings. A number of projects and examples of potential collaborative working have emerged from those meetings, which is helpful.

There will, clearly, be a number of major pieces of work on the fiscal framework, on Covid recovery—which is key—and on tackling child poverty. We take a collaborative approach with COSLA; I know that local government is committed to working with us to tackle child poverty. The debates that we have on the quantum and the figures sometimes do not tell the full story about the work that goes on behind the scenes between the Government and local government on shared joint priorities.

As I set out in my opening remarks, the affordable housing budget is increasing by £174 million, which breaks down to a £40 million increase on the previous published capital spending review figure and an increase of £134 million in financial transactions. That brings the total that is available for affordable housing across the parliamentary session from £3.444 billion to £3.618 billion, which is a 21 per cent increase compared with the previous five years. That will be phased across the five years, and the figures will differ from year to year, but what is important is the quantum across the five years.

We are well aware of some of the pressures that are on that. We know that the construction industry faces on-going market condition pressures, which is why there will be a targeted review of the Scottish Government’s capital spending review in early 2022, alongside the resource spending review. That will be important. We need to ensure that the investment delivers the affordable housing that is badly needed across Scotland, and we know that it will go a long way towards doing so.

At the heart of the regulations is a set of basic safety standards. I hope that we agree that all premises should comply with that set of basic safety standards. As you said, some are already doing so, and if others are not, they should be. That would create a level playing field to ensure the safety of those using those properties, which is at the heart of the measures.

Murdo Fraser then talked about bed and breakfasts. As I said, the set of mandatory standards, which will help to protect the safety of guests, should apply to the whole self-catering sector. Many bed and breakfast hosts will already be following the standards as a matter of compliance with existing law or best practice; therefore, we do not consider the standards to be onerous.

B and Bs have been included from the beginning, and one of the important reasons why is that, if they were not included, a number of premises would potentially be relabelled as B and Bs in order to avoid licensing. That concern was expressed during the consultation. It would be very difficult to define B and Bs in order to differentiate them from other types of provision. Therefore, we took the view to leave B and Bs in the scope of the licensing proposals. The relabelling issue would have been a considerable concern should they have been excluded.

The principle is cost recovery only; local authorities cannot go beyond that. The guidance will set out in more detail what we think is important to make sure that local authorities are following that principle. We want the scheme to be proportionate, not onerous. The guidance will be clear on that.

Yes, that issue affects a small part of the sector. In the main, the sector is law abiding and provides good and safe premises for people to use. I want to put that on the record.

Undoubtedly, there is some criminality. The evidence that was given by Nicola Robison shows the importance of having the fit and proper person test as part of the licensing scheme. That is critical because Police Scotland would be able to flag up any concerns about someone not being a fit and proper person. That could be used by the local authority in deciding whether to grant a licence. There is a small element of criminality, but that is not something that we can ignore.

No, I do not think that they are well founded. Let me say a couple of things. Where a licensing authority fails to determine an application on time, the application is deemed to be granted for a period of one year. A licensing authority cannot kick a licence application into the long grass, if that was the concern. Existing hosts and operators who apply before 1 April 2023 can continue to operate while their licence application is processed. I do not accept there is any issue of a de facto ban.

The processes are probably quite different in Dublin. Applications here will be deemed to be granted for a period of one year. There is nothing to be gained by delaying an application. Local authorities will want to be swift and efficient in dealing with licensing applications.

Many do comply. Therefore, making sure that all comply creates a level playing field. That is important.

I have set out the reasons why there have perhaps been differing approaches to the level of fees, so the guidance on that will be important. I should also say that the fee should be proportionate to the size of the business. The large operators with large party houses should pay more than those with one room in a host’s house. The fee should be proportionate to the ability to pay and the size of business, which will be set out in the guidance. All that will mean that the fees should not be onerous. As I said earlier, it is about cost recovery. All that taken together means that the fees should be manageable, and proportionate to the size of the business.

A basket of measures would come together in the licensing scheme. As Rachel Nicholson just outlined, a self-regulated registration scheme would not require people to comply with the measures in the same way. The powers that we will give to local authorities, which go beyond the core elements of the licensing scheme, are also important. The licensing scheme strikes the right balance in ensuring that where practice does not adhere to basic safety standards or there is potentially criminal behaviour—people behaving at that extreme end of the scale—a proportionate response can be deployed. I do not believe that such situations could be dealt with in the same way under a self-regulated registration scheme.

All in all, it is a proportionate and balanced approach. I have met people from the sector who think otherwise. We have tried to work with them to compromise in relation to some of their concerns; we have done that on many of their concerns. What we have landed is a proportionate and balanced approach.

As I have said, the basket of measures should be seen as proportionate in responding to the very real issues that have been raised by communities. I guess you could turn that on its head and ask the sector why, if all those things are things that it wants, it opposes the licensing scheme? What is it about the licensing scheme that it is so opposed to, if a registration scheme would do exactly the same thing?

I suggest that the registration scheme was not going to do exactly the same thing; that we need local authorities to have powers to refuse a licence, if someone is not operating in a way that is safe or responsible; and that authorities should be able to use their additional powers to deal with the very real issues that residents and communities have raised. I believe that a licensing scheme would do that in a way that a registration scheme would not.