Seòmar agus comataidhean

There will always be an element of interchangeability, with people coming into the sector and people moving out of it. We want to make that process as easy as possible. Stakeholders have told us that we should make it easier. That came from evidence that we received when I was a committee member, but also outwith that. The point was raised by stakeholders such as the STA and the ASSC. Again, that was the main point that was raised through engagement with stakeholders.

There are a number of things to consider. One takes us back to the general principle. Was the scheme to be a national scheme or a local scheme? It was established that it would be best for it to be a local scheme, for a number of reasons. Edinburgh, the Highlands and East Lothian, for instance, are all different areas, and the level of interpretation within local authorities is really important.

There are a wide range of short-term let units. Coming from a local government background, I am aware that there are various licensing schemes, for taxis, alcohol and other things. The idea was to recognise the variances that could exist within the short-term let sector and to allow for local interpretation. There will be variances in what local authorities think and in relation to the local authority’s outlook on certain types of accommodation among short-term lets. The key thing is to be as flexible as possible within that.

We spoke with SOLAR representatives on a regular basis—to people who are themselves engaging with and licensing people. They are engaged not just in short-term lets licensing but in licensing more broadly, too. We have tried to listen to them regarding their approach, and we will continue to listen to them. I know that there are different interpretations of the guidelines and policies; it can come down to individual authorities, as you will see within planning broadly, and in alcohol licensing, for example. It is about recognising that individual local authorities will have their own input and their own outlook, which I think is really important, while understanding the variances in the types of accommodation. It is a matter of being as flexible as possible. However, we want to deliver on the overarching safety aspect behind why the scheme was brought in without having a detrimental effect on tourism, so that people can come to Scotland and have faith that the accommodation that they are staying in is safe and suitable for them.

I do not know if Jess Niven wants to add anything, but the overriding principle is to encourage flexibility.

Conversions have not been picked up as an issue, while new-builds in particular have been. I am happy to pick up that particular point, and we will continue to monitor the on-going feedback. Again, we have not had that fed back from local authorities on a large number of occasions, either—feedback tends to be on the new-builds—but I am happy to pick up on that point.

Yes. That is one of the key issues. It comes back to the point that I made about our meeting SOLAR. I can get anecdotal feedback on what local authorities are saying, but it is really important to hear that directly, and I will continue to meet SOLAR, as my officials will, on that particular point.

I think that you are right. The example of yurts has been given. There could be two different sites for a project that has 30 or 40 yurts, and we might need two groups of 20 yurts in different places. In such cases, there could be slightly different interpretations of how the licence works. We are working with individual local authorities to try to give them that guidance.

I will bring Jess Niven in to go into the detail of the discussions that officials have been having with individual local authorities that have raised the issue, but you are right. There are impacts in relation to the paperwork that is involved—if there is one application for all the yurts, for example. There is also the cost element, because the cost has to be proportionate.

I am not sure that I quite understand your question. I would dispute your interpretation of the provision. My officials and I have gone out of our way to speak to individual groups. As I said, I have met the ASSC on a dozen occasions, although we might not have agreed on everything, and I have also had a number of meetings with the STA, SOLAR and so on, and have listened to their views.

Maybe I am being silly, but I am having difficulty understanding the climate change aspect of what we are looking at. Can you clarify that?

On that point, Mr Briggs, discussions on the scheme have been on-going for a number of months. I pulled together discussions on the feedback that we were getting. We had a meeting with the festival organisers and the Edinburgh Festival Fringe and local authorities, and everybody was quite happy with the outcome of that particular meeting. The City of Edinburgh Council required some clarity and we gave them that clarity. It comes back to what we all know, which is that, every year, prices rocket in Edinburgh because of the festival.

There has been on-going dialogue and debate in Edinburgh about whether the festival is too big for Edinburgh and what the scale of the festival should be. You and I have had that discussion. Should more be done to try to work with other local authorities to take some of the demand that is there? There is a much broader piece of work that Edinburgh needs to do with the festival, the fringe and the Scottish Government to look at how big the festival should be, how far we can spread it and what impact it has.

I understand the point that you are trying to make, but we need a much broader analysis of issues with regard to the festival. Every year, prices go up and there are shortages, but a much broader piece of work needs to be done. Again, I am happy to speak to colleagues in the Government and in local authorities and, indeed, to yourself about that, but as I have said, we need a much broader analysis to give us a much broader perspective on what we need to do. After all, this has been an on-going debate in Edinburgh as well as in other parts of Scotland for a long time now.

On that point, Mr Briggs, I am not saying that this is about health and safety. How people interpret these things and how the matter is assessed as part of the broader debate are separate issues. Health and safety considerations are incredibly important, given the thousands of people who come to Edinburgh, but there is no doubt that we need a broader—and separate—discussion about the amount of provision that exists.

I do not think that the order will do that. One of the key things that I talked about with the expert group was on-going dialogue. We speak to SOLAR on a regular basis, as do officials—almost weekly. I will continue to meet ASSC. I have mentioned reviewing the situation in Edinburgh once the festival is over. You and I have discussed in other forums what that will look like, and I will be happy to involve you in discussions at that stage. The other issue is meeting providers, such as Airbnb and other groups, so that there is on-going dialogue.

I suppose that it comes back to the original decision on whether it would be a national or a local scheme. I think that it was decided that it would be best if it was a local scheme for a number of reasons, one being that that would take in local circumstances. There will always be variances within the scheme, as there are variances within planning. Outwith short-term lets, there will always be variances in terms of planning and other licensing schemes—there will always be that element.

The whole purpose of coming here today was to try to simplify and feed back on some of the points that have been raised. Obviously, the scheme is still in the transitional stage, as has been mentioned, so we will continue to monitor it. The expert group has been brought together to look at that. I also speak in the advice group, which includes VisitScotland and other stakeholders.

A wide range of discussions have gone on in the past and a wide range of discussions will continue. I am pretty confident that, despite the variances that you will see among local authorities—which are similar for any other licensing or planning scheme—that clarity will be given. Of course, we will continue to monitor that.

We have been made aware of the point about alcohol licences and I will bring in Craig McGuffie. Craig, do you want to comment on what we are doing in that respect?

There are a number of points. One is about trying to strike a balance. For example, we talked about the temporary exemptions and other issues that were raised. That has been the most pertinent issue, in terms of bringing things forward. Obviously, there were discussions about how far to go at this stage—we are still in a transitional stage, which is important. We agreed that we would discuss that particular point with the expert group.

Exemptions and provisional licences were the things that were raised as priorities in the feedback, not just from the ASSC but from other groups. At the moment, those are the most important things that we need to pick up on. Going forward, through the expert group that I talked about and the on-going engagement with stakeholders, we will continue to look at the issues. If we need to bring something back, we will certainly do so. We will also be cognisant of what the committee says. It was felt that those were the most important points that had to be raised.

There is a broader discussion, and it is not just with the stakeholders—it is also with the likes of SOLAR and so on. It was always going to be a balancing act to consider the key things that we need to take forward. We will continue to discuss the issue. There has been on-going dialogue all the way through, and there will continue to be on-going dialogue. As I referenced, the expert group will continue to consider the issues once the scheme is fully operational and in place.

We have included the most important things that we need now, but we are not knocking back the issues that stakeholders have raised. We will continue to discuss the issues with the stakeholders and with SOLAR and others.