Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would like to pick up on the points that were raised, I said that we acted on the most important points from stakeholders. For example, I mentioned the Short Term Accommodation Association’s view.

I will continue to engage with the committee and with stakeholders. I will also reflect on what the committee has said today. Convener, if the committee wishes to have additional information, it can certainly invite me back at some other stage. In the meantime, I will continue with the discussions and reflect on what has been said today. I will also be happy to meet the committee or individual members at a further stage if that is thought to be appropriate.

Yes—I will bring in Jessica Niven on that particular point. As you are aware, we had hoped to have those figures available for the committee. Perhaps Jess can advise on when it looks likely that that report will be published.

Yes. We have engaged with the Law Society of Scotland over a long period of time and it raised that point about the order. We are still in discussion with it about that, and we would certainly look to engage with it on that point. We got its feedback at a relatively late stage in the process, we continue to engage with it, and we will continue to engage on that point. If we need to amend the guidelines or whatever, we will ensure that we do that. However, we are still in discussion with the Law Society on some of the points that it has raised.

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?