Seòmar agus comataidhean

My question is on an issue that we have touched on already. Is the licensing regime acting as a barrier to new entrants to the short-term letting market? If that is a problem, how could it be tackled? I will go to Ailsa Raeburn first and then to Cliff Hague. You have touched on the issue. I do not know whether you have anything else to add.

Cliff Hague, given your context in Edinburgh, what are your thoughts on that question? We have the short-term let control area there and we are considering licensing. I have had some feedback about how complex the application process has been in Edinburgh. What is your experience of that?

The key point is to come back to the evidence base. You mentioned previous discussions on the City of Edinburgh Council’s position. Has its current approach to licensing and the control area been based on evidence that it has taken over a number of years?

I think that my next question can be picked up later, convener, as we are tight for time.

Yes. I suppose that there is a balance. We have talked about short-term licensing and short-term control areas, which are different but related. My question is about the nuances in that regard and the differences between the control areas and the licensing regime.

I represent East Lothian, where we have the Scottish open—thankfully—every year. The issue of home sharing and house letting comes up every year, so I am aware of the issues that exist.

I thank Julia Amour for her answer. More broadly, to open up the discussion to Fiona Campbell, I note that we have talked about the licensing scheme being a barrier into the short-term letting market. Fiona, you touched on that issue, so you might want to say a little bit more. You also mentioned that the licensing scheme is applied inconsistently.

Those questions might be more for Fiona, but Julia might want to say something in relation to any feedback on those two issues from speaking to people.

I will build on the issue of ring fencing. There is a difference between what COSLA is saying and what the Government is saying—the Government says that the ring-fenced portion of local government funding is 7 per cent, but COSLA says that it is 60 per cent. There are shared objectives, so the issue might be one of procedure, which takes us back to the point that Bill Moyes and Andrew Burns made about where that is agreed. This is all happening during the budget process, which makes it extremely difficult for councils to plan. Do you have any views on the procedure before that? How should we agree objectives in relation to where the ring-fenced money sits? I do not want to be in the same position next year. Is there a lesson that we need to learn on ring fencing and how shared objectives relate to that?

We cannot face the situation again next year in which COSLA says one thing and the Scottish Government says another about the procedure. I know that it is not as simple as that but perhaps we can learn from it to ensure that next year’s budget process is less complicated. We are a few weeks away from councils setting their budgets and we still do not know what our shared objectives are and where we go with that. It is too messy. What are your views on that?

Thank you.

The answer to my second question was wrapped up in that. Thank you.

I go back to the point that Robert Emmott made about fiscal discussions going on in the medium and long term. Have there been discussions about things that could be done in the medium to long term, such as a local sales tax?

I will go to Martin Booth. If you have any thoughts on the medium to long-term view, please add them.