Seòmar agus comataidhean

No. As I set out earlier, the licensing scheme gives the additional protections. It makes sure, or example, that the fit and proper person test is there. As the committee heard at its previous evidence session, there is a lot of support among local authorities for the scheme, which would allow them to use the additional powers that have been given to them, if they so wish. There would be no requirement on them beyond the core element of the licensing scheme, but I think that local authorities welcome the fact that they would have additional powers to deal with things such as noise, antisocial behaviour and littering, as appropriate to their areas. The licensing scheme does that in a way that I am not convinced a registration scheme would have done.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the two motions seeking approval for the instruments. With the committee’s permission, I intend to speak to both instruments together.

We are committed to ensuring that local authorities have appropriate regulatory powers to balance the needs and concerns of their communities with the wider economic and tourism benefits of short-term lets. We have consulted extensively to take this forward.

In 2019, we consulted on the broad principles of a regulatory framework, and that consultation showed broad support for some form of regulation. That formed the basis for the proposals to implement a licensing scheme and control areas, which were announced in January 2020. In September 2020, we launched a second consultation on detailed proposals for legislation, which was then laid in the Scottish Parliament in December 2020.

As the committee will be aware, the licensing order was withdrawn in February 2021, following concerns that were raised by some members and some tourism stakeholders. In response, we established a working group made up of a wide range of stakeholders to explore and resolve those concerns. The working group made helpful suggestions for changes to the legislation, which was reflected in the draft that we published for the third consultation in June. Further pragmatic and significant changes were made to the licensing order following careful consideration of the consultation responses that we received. The changes were set out in my letter to this committee in October and included the removal of overprovision powers and stronger guidance on fees.

I know that short-term lets bring many benefits to hosts, visitors and the Scottish economy. They are an important source of flexible and responsive accommodation for tourists and workers. However, they have also caused issues for local communities that need to be addressed.

At the heart of the licensing scheme are basic safety standards that will help to protect guests, hosts, neighbours and communities across Scotland. Many hosts will already be following those standards as a matter of compliance with existing law or best practice. We do not consider those standards to be onerous.

Where there are other problems such as noise, nuisance, littering, antisocial behaviour, the loss of residential housing stock and adverse impact on local communities, the licensing scheme, together with the control area legislation, will give local authorities the powers to address those problems. Issues arise in rural and urban areas across Scotland and we expect local authorities to use their powers to do no more or less than is necessary to tackle them.

I understand the impact that Covid-19 has had on the tourism sector, which is why this Government has supported the tourism and hospitality sector throughout the pandemic, not least through an extension of the 100 per cent non-domestic rates relief for all retail, leisure and hospitality premises for 2021-22. However, we need to put the legislation in place now, so that councils can get their licensing schemes ready. Many local residents and communities are keen to see progress on the issue and today provides the opportunity for us to make sure that that happens.

The control area regulations were laid in December 2020 and approved by the Scottish Parliament; they came into force on 1 April 2021. Control areas will help to manage high concentrations of secondary letting, where it affects the availability of residential housing or the character of a neighbourhood and they will help to restrict or prevent short-term lets in places or types of building where it is not considered appropriate. That will help local authorities to ensure that homes are used to best effect in their areas. The City of Edinburgh Council and Highland Council are both moving forward with proposals to designate control areas. The control area amendment regulations align the definition of short-term let for control area purposes with that in the licensing order.

We will continue to work with and listen to stakeholders. We will shortly reconvene the stakeholder working group to finalise the guidance on the licensing scheme and prepare for implementation. We will work with local authorities to review the levels of short-term let activity in hotspot areas in summer 2023. The review will identify whether any further measures are required to control numbers and check that we have avoided any unintended consequences.

I believe that our proposals take a robust but proportionate approach to the regulation of short-term lets and that they are right for Scottish circumstances. Therefore, I ask the committee to support the motions. I look forward to any questions that members may have.

Naeem, has there been any assessment of that?

Thank you for inviting me to present the draft Relevant Adjustments to Common Parts (Disabled Persons) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 for your consideration.

If they are approved, the amended regulations will enable disabled people who live in housing with common areas, such as communal access or gardens, to make relevant adjustments to those areas with the agreement of the majority of owners and within clearly defined timescales for each part of the process. The legislation is the first of its kind in the UK.

On 21 February 2020, legislation came into effect that enabled disabled people to make adaptations to the common areas in a property with the consent of a majority of the owners, rather than the consent of all owners. Since the regulations came into force last year, feedback from stakeholders prompted us to revisit the regulations and amend them to include more structure around timescales for each stage of the process.

The amendment regulations that are presented today have specific timescales for each stage of the process, providing clarity for the owners and the disabled person. It is of primary importance that the regulations provide disabled people with a clear and workable method of securing the agreement of other owners to reasonable adjustments that are being made in common areas. Amending the principal regulations ensures that the legislation is aligned to our original policy intent that the disabled person can carry out adjustments to the common parts of a property in which they have an interest, provided that they make an application to all owners of the common parts and obtain the consent of a majority of those owners.

I am happy to answer questions on the instrument.

It is worth putting on the record that, although—obviously—the person can choose to pay for the adaptation themselves, they can also apply for grant funding from the scheme of assistance, which local authorities provide, as long as it is assessed by a suitably qualified professional, such as an occupational therapist. Although it is not advocacy per se, that guidance around funding opportunities is provided through the local authority.

Thank you for your time.

There is definitely more work to be done as per the Christie recommendations to focus more resources upstream for prevention. I absolutely agree with that, but it is not the easiest thing to do. We need to find ways, not least through Covid recovery, to work with organisations and local government to look at how that can be done, because we know that spend is more effective in that space.

You asked a number of questions about the size of the budget. In essence, decisions about the balance of the budget are for Government. Decisions about taxation in Scotland, at least to the extent that such powers are within devolved competence, need to be informed by an understanding of the resources needed to address areas of human rights deficiency or a weakness. Taxation is one of the principal means of ensuring that those resources are available, but, with regard to Covid recovery, there is a balance to be struck between revenue raising and supporting businesses, communities and families to recover.

In our spend over the Covid period, you will see expenditure of £2.5 billion on supporting low-income households. Obviously, it was a deliberate policy decision to recognise that the impact of Covid has not been equally felt. Recognising that means that we then have to act in a particular way in following through our policy and budget decisions. Through the Covid recovery strategy, which will be closely aligned to the budget, you would expect to see more of that cohesive thinking across decisions making. Government always has to make tough decisions, particularly on budgets, because there is never enough money to do absolutely everything that we want to do—there never has been. Therefore, decisions have to be made and we have to be more strategic. The task that the Cabinet has set itself is to see what more we can do to tackle child poverty. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority, so we have had to be very clear about the priorities for Government and, therefore, the budget. I hope that that will be clear, once the budget process is properly under way.

The EBAG recommendations that were made earlier this year are important. In the programme for government, which was published last month, we made a clear commitment to further embed equalities and human rights in all stages of the Scottish Government’s budget process, taking into account those recommendations.

The EBAG recommendations were shared with me when I came into my post back in May and they were published just a couple of months after that. We have been giving them careful consideration, including as part of the forthcoming budgetary cycle, and of our longer-term budget improvement and equality and human rights mainstreaming work. I have agreed to renew EBAG’s mandate for another year to allow further development of our collective thinking, and I plan to meet Professor Angela O’Hagan, the chair, in early November to discuss EBAG’s work and its recommendations further. Thereafter, we will seek to set out our thinking on the next steps in spring next year. I would be happy to update the committee at that time.

Members will be aware that the recommendations were presented under the four themes of improving processes, communications, organisation and culture, and knowledge and understanding. There is a lot to consider, but I am happy to come back to the committee with further detail.

The point about the third sector having a seat at the table with regard to the economic strategy has been raised with me directly. That remains under discussion. The role of the third sector, not least in Covid recovery, is fundamental, and in my discussions with third sector organisations, I have made the point that the Government recognises that.

On the requests from 2019, I might have to write to the committee. That was before my time in this role, but I am happy to write to update committee members on what has been done since then.

You make a good point. The Scottish Government and the agencies across Scotland for which we have responsibility collect, analyse and publish evidence and analysis by equality characteristic across a wide range of policy areas. There are many barriers and challenges to collecting, analysing and reporting equality data. Despite improvements in recent years, there are still gaps in the equality evidence base. In April this year, we launched the first phase of our equality data improvement programme in order to take action to make equality evidence more wide ranging and robust. A stronger and more complete equality evidence base will help to support the collective effort across the public sector and ensure that the requirements of the public sector equality duty are fulfilled.

The programme will be undertaken over the next 18 months, and I am hopeful that major improvements will flow from it. You mentioned the issue of sample size. The first phase of the improvement programme comprises a series of projects that will focus on the process elements of equality data collection, including sample size. The programme is in the early phase, but I am happy to ensure that we keep the committee abreast of developments.

On data gaps regarding ethnicity, our “Race Equality Immediate Priorities Plan”, which was published on 14 September, has at its heart the data improvement and systemic change recommendations that have been made to us by the expert reference group on Covid-19 and ethnicity. We absolutely recognise that issue.

A lot of improvement work is going on, and we are happy to keep the committee updated on it.