Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

You will know, convener, that I was a member of the committee when we first discussed short-term lets, and I listened to some of the concerns about the issue at that time.

Government ministers have met the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers on about 10 occasions—I have met it on seven occasions so far—so we are obviously listening to it regularly. We have also met and engaged with the Scottish Tourism Alliance. We have spoken to the likes of Booking.com, Airbnb and so on a number of times as well. Indeed, they met with the previous First Minister, Mr Yousaf, and the current Deputy First Minister, and they endorsed our approach of looking at the review, seeing what we need to do and seeing how things bed down.

We have been listening to providers. We might not have agreed with all the points that they have raised but we have certainly listened to them. We are not downplaying. As part of the process, we are saying that people should look at the implementation update and let things bed down a little. We have made changes already. We have listened and will continue to listen, and I have made that commitment when meeting providers.

We have also engaged with the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators. Local authorities are the licensing bodies, and we get feedback from the sector on the time taken to process applications and how those are assessed using local interpretation, on which we have tried to work with SOLAR.

We have worked with providers face to face and through local authorities to pick up issues that they have had with local authorities as well. We have issued further guidance, as required, following feedback from the ASSC and the STA, for example.

It is very much an on-going process and we have mentioned that to the providers regularly.

There are a number of points. I spoke to the SBBA too. I go right back to when the policy was brought in, when there was a discussion and decision as to whether the scheme was going to be a national scheme or, as with many licensing schemes in Scotland, whether it was going to be a local, or local authority, scheme.

It is up to local authorities to interpret the guidance and, at the beginning, each local authority interpreted it slightly differently. We have had meetings with SOLAR—the body that represents the licensing authorities in Scotland—on that. Guidance was issued about what to do if there was an issue around one authority interpreting part of the scheme differently from another. We tried to speak to SOLAR regularly.

I will bring in Anita Stewart to talk a little bit more about her involvement with local authorities. This is about trying to get national consistency but with local interpretation. Part of the review that we are talking about will look at that and see what we can do to further strengthen the guidance.

Anita, you spoke directly to SOLAR and so on. Do you want to say any more about the work that you have done on that point?

A balance needs to be struck when it comes to providing flexibility, whether we are talking about exemptions for a couple of one-off events or for the festival, which runs for a month, but people probably start to come into the city about two weeks beforehand in order to start preparing and so on. It is a case of trying to provide that flexibility.

The discussions that I had with the festival and fringe organisations were about that six-week period, in which flexibility is key, given the extent to which visitor numbers increase. It is a case of achieving that balance, and that is part of the review that is being looked at.

Once the recommendations have come forward and we have had a look at them, I will be happy to write to the committee on that point.