 Good morning and welcome to the 16th meeting of the local government housing and planning committee in 2021. I would like to ask all members and witnesses to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent and that all other notifications are turned off during the meeting. Please note that apologies have been received from Megan Gallacher and Murdo Fraser attending as substitute for her. Murdo's first appearance of the committee and accordingly as our first item this morning, I would like to invite him to declare any interest relevant to the work of this committee. Murdo. Thank you, convener, and good morning. In relation to the work of the committee, there are two interests that may be relevant to the committee's work and today's session. I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland, although not currently practising. Secondly, I derived some income from two rental properties that I have an interest in, although neither of them are let on a short-term basis. Our second item this morning is consideration of whether to take item 6, 7 and 8 in private. Item 6 will be an opportunity for members to consider the contents of its report on short-term let. Item 7 will be a chance for the committee to agree its approach on the scrutiny of non-domestic rates coronavirus Scotland bill and item 8 will be an opportunity for the committee to give further consideration of its approach of the MPF4. Do members agree to take items 6, 7 and 8 in private? That looks like agreement, so thank you very much for that. The third item on our agenda today is sick evidence as part of the committee's work on short-term let. That is the committee's final evidence session on those regulations. After taking evidence from the cabinet secretary, the committee will debate the motions and recommend approval of the regulations. Before I welcome the cabinet secretary to the committee, I would like to also welcome Fergus Ewing. Welcome to the committee Shona Robison, cabinet secretary for social justice, housing and local government. Andrew Mott, head of housing, markets unit and Rachel Nicholson, who is the lawyer in the housing and elections branch of the legal directorate in the Scottish government. Thank you for joining us today. I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement. 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 wider economic and tourism benefits of short-term let. We have consulted extensively to take that forward. In 2019, we consulted on the broad principles of our regulatory framework. That showed broad support for some form of regulation. That formed the basis for the proposals to implement a licensing scheme and control areas announced in January 2020. In September 2020, we launched a second consultation on detailed proposals for legislation, which was then laid at the Scottish Parliament in December 2020. As the committee will be aware, the licensing order was withdrawn in February 2021 following concerns raised by some members and 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 did make helpful suggestions for changes to 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 responses received to our third consultation. Those changes were set out in my letter to the committee in October and included the removal of over-provision powers and stronger guidance on fees. I know that, short-term, let's 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, which 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 don't consider them to be onerous. Where there are other problems, such as noise, nuisance, littering and antisocial behaviour, the loss of residential housing stock and adverse impact on local communities, the licensing scheme, together with the control area legislation, gives local authorities the powers to addresses. Issues arise in rural and urban areas of Scotland and we expect local authorities to use their powers to do no more or less than is necessary to tackle them. I totally understand the impact that Covid-19 has had on the tourism sector, which is why the Government has supported the tourism and hospitality sector through the pandemic, not least through an extension of the 100 per cent NDR 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 this issue and today provides the opportunity for us to make sure that that happens. Turning to control areas, the control area regulations were laid in December 2020, approved by the Scottish Parliament and 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. This 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, and the control area amendment regulations align the definition of short-term let for control area purposes with that in the licensing order. Finally, 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 are right for Scottish circumstances. I therefore ask the committee to support the motions today and look forward to any questions that you may have. I am so great to hear you clearly set out the purpose of the proposed licensing system. I am going to start with some questions and then we will work around the committee members who have indicated that they would like to ask questions. My first question is that the committee has heard that there is possibly insufficient data about short-term lets in Scotland to support the introduction of a licensing system. I would be interested to hear what data did you have access to when developing the proposed licensing system. First of all, the evidence set out in our Bria suggests that the market appears to be recovering towards pre-Covid-19 levels of activity, although I have to keep an eye on that. We used the 2019 data established in the Scottish Government's 2019 research as a baseline for our Bria. The Bria also sets out trends in existing data sources, which include the non-domestic rates role and data provided from Airbnb. Both of those sources show a period of rapid growth in the short-term lets sector over the past decade. Baseline activity is challenging, not least because properties can appear multiple times on the same or different platforms, and the licensing scheme will help to clarify the levels of activity locally and nationally, allowing a more comprehensive picture of short-term let activity across Scotland to be mapped for the first time. That will be helpful. Clearly, the number of short-term lets varies from area to area. There are some areas where there is quite a concentration, particularly Edinburgh and some rural parts of Scotland, particularly the Highlands, where rates can be well above 10 per cent, but we will get more comprehensive data, as I said, through the data gathered through the licensing scheme. Thank you very much for that response. Last week, we heard from panellists who felt strongly that the over-provision regulation is really required if the legislation is going to have the intended effect and actually empower local authorities. If the control areas that are outlined as they are do not deliver, are you prepared to revisit the over-provisioning aspect of the regulation? If so, when? As I said in my opening remarks, we believe that the package of measures in the licensing scheme plus the short-term let control areas' powers for local authorities will be enough. We think that those will give local authorities the powers that they need to address concerns. As I set out, Edinburgh and Highlands are already looking at the proposals for control areas, and I think that other local authorities may also do so. However, I also flagged that we would be having a review in the summer of 2023, and that would give us an option to look at whether or not more controls are required. We will be able to take stock of where we are, and if it shows that those powers are not sufficient to address areas of concern, that would be an opportunity to look at that. It would also be an opportunity to look at anything that is not working with the licensing scheme or any concerns from the tourism sector. Summer 2023 would be the opportune moment to have a look at all those things. Thank you very much for providing that clarity and the potential timeframe for that. That is my question, and I will now move on to questions from Miles Briggs. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary, and good morning to the panel as well. I wanted to ask a few questions with regard to the evidence committee that has heard around a different approach to that, specifically around the regulation through a registration scheme, rather than the licensing scheme that has been put forward. In your consideration of that, why is that suggestion of having a registered scheme, rather than a licensing scheme, not being taken forward? Thanks for your question. We did consider registration as part of the 2019 consultation, and we have also considered the proposals from the ASSC that were made earlier this year for registered accommodations to be exempt from the licensing scheme. We do not believe that registration offers the same protections to guests, neighbours and local communities, as licensing does. To be robust and effective, a registration scheme would really need to make much of the same requirements as a licensing scheme would do. We understand that the policy intention of the proposals for registration would be to ensure compliance with broadly the same mandatory conditions that are set out in the licensing scheme. However, we did not really see a draft registration scheme, and it is not clear how it would be enforced. The main point that I would want to make is that I do not think that registration would include any provision for a fit and proper person test or additional conditions to be attached to the registration. Those are important components of the licensing scheme, which a parallel registration scheme would potentially undermine. That fit and proper test is important, not least from a safety point of view. As the committee heard some of the concerns from Police Scotland about any criminal activity, that fit and proper test will be important. It was given full consideration, but we believe that the licensing scheme as proposed is proportionate. It is not onerous, but it provides a level of protection for those who are using short-term lets. One of the key aspects that the cabinet secretary and European statement accepted was that most of the concerns that have been raised have been about a certain few areas in the country, honeypots, for what would be a better word, around tourism. Witnesses have argued that the approach that the Government has taken has been disproportionate to introduce Scotland-wide licensing systems. What assessment has now taken place of the control areas that would have put in place? Why is Scotland-wide scheme being seen as necessary when that is very much seen as an issue around key, pressured tourism areas? The licensing scheme seeks to ensure that every short-term let across Scotland meets basic safety standards. That should be the same, whether that is in Edinburgh or the rural highlands. It is important that, for urban and rural areas and for businesses large and small, there needs to be a level playing field. During the consultation and on-going correspondence, we have heard from residents in many places across Scotland, including Glasgow, Ayr, Apple Cross in the Highlands, Loch Lomond, the Tross at National Park, Isle of Harris, North Berwick, St Andrews and West Linton, among others. They have highlighted a range of concerns about short-term lets, including the impact on local housing supply, noise and social behaviours. I do not think that those are just urban issues. Delivering national consistency on safety standards is important and allowing and enabling local authorities to use the additional powers beyond the core elements that they see fit to meet the needs of local communities. We have committed, as I said earlier, to work with local authorities to review the levels of short-term let activity in those hotspot areas in the summer of 2023 to see whether any further measures are required. Obviously, in terms of the control area, they came into power or into place in April, and Edinburgh has consulted widely on that. If they wanted to move forward, they would need ministerial approval to make the whole of Edinburgh a control area. Highlands has moved forward with just bad enough and stressed pay, because they see that as an area of particular concern. Those are powers that local authorities can use if they want to and see it as a proportionate response to local issues, but they are not required to do so. That is the right balance. It gives local authorities the ability to use them if they so wish, and, as I said, the control areas would require ministerial approval as well. Would you accept that the national safety standards could have been achieved through a registration scheme, not necessarily a licensing scheme? I think that, as I said earlier, the licensing scheme gives the additional protections that make sure that, for example, the fit and proper person test is there. As was heard by the committee at the last evidence session, a lot of support for that among local authorities to be able to use the additional powers that have been given to them if they so wish. There is no requirement beyond the core element of the licensing scheme, but local authorities welcome the fact that they would have additional powers to deal with things such as noise, anti-social behaviour or littering that are appropriate to those areas. I think that the licensing scheme does that in a way that I am not convinced that the registration scheme would have. Mark Griffin would like to come in with a supplementary on that question, and then we will be going to Murdo Fraser. Just to continue on that line of question from Miles Briggs. Cabinet Secretary, you have done it. The staff and your operant statement wanted to give local authorities powers to address concerns. Now, there clearly are concerns in some local authority areas, but we have not heard the same level of concerns in others. I just wondered whether there was any consideration given to devolving the powers completely to local authorities to give them the discretion on whether to introduce a licensing scheme or not, addressing their own local circumstances? That is the right balance. Local authorities in the main are supportive. The response from local authorities in the main is supportive. I also think that beyond the core measures in the licensing scheme, it is about devolving power to local authorities to either take those additional powers forward on anti-social behaviour, on littering, on noise, to meet concerns in their local area or not. They should do that in a proportionate way. The short-term control area is similar. There is no requirement for local authorities to use those powers, but it is very clear to me that local authorities that want to and see that as a way of addressing issues in their area will do so. As I mentioned earlier, I had two local authorities bringing forward proposals for control areas. It strikes the right balance. We want those basic safety standards to apply everywhere, so they should apply everywhere, but beyond that, the local authorities have a lot of discretion on whether they would use those additional powers. Just one other small question. Just to ask the cabinet secretary if any consideration had been given to a pilot project, in particular local authorities who have concerns. I think that because of the extensive consultation that has taken place and the work that has gone on around the provisions here, moving forward across Scotland with its substantial changes that have been made is the right approach. We want everyone using short-term lets across Scotland to have the same basic protections, the same assurances and to make sure that there is a level playing field for hosts. It is not fair that some clearly have been putting in place all of the measures that they should put in place, but others may not have, and that is not fair to those hosts who have done the right thing. Creating that level playing field across Scotland will be important as well. I will now go to a question from Murdo Fraser with a supplementary question from Paul McClellan. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary and colleagues. I have a couple of questions that I want to ask about the issue of cost, cost to local authorities and then separately cost to business. The committee has had a lot of evidence from local authorities and also from the sector about the potential costs and a lot of criticism of the figures in the business and regulatory impact assessment that assesses the estimated cost to be £200 to £400 per property, but the evidence that the committee has heard suggests that it could be much higher than that. Solaire, who is a society of local authority lawyers and administrators in Scotland, has said that the fees could be more likely to be £1,500 to £2,000, which would be a major burden both on councils and small business. We have also seen individual councils raise concerns in my area, Perthincan North Council, and I have raised the issue. Five councils say in their submission that the fees that are set out are incredibly low and that the section of the Bria should be more realistic and not give a false hope to applicants of low fees. Can I start by asking how were the figures in the Bria calculated? How robust are they? In the event that it turns out that the local authorities who have submitted evidence to the committee are correct, how is the balance to be made up? Will they be expected to raise the fees on a full cost recovery basis, or will the Scottish Government step in and provide additional financial assistance to them? Thanks for your questions. I will start with the issue of local authority resources, if that is okay. A total of 23 local authorities responded to our 2020 consultation. Only three of those responses expressed the opinion that the Scottish Government should provide any grant or loan funding to support the establishment of the licensing scheme. Eleven local authorities responded to the 2021 consultation, and two local authorities highlighted concerns about resourcing. Outside of the consultations, there have been no formal requests so far for additional funding that has been received. We have engaged extensively with local authorities and other stakeholders to finalise the legislation that we think is efficient and effective. On the fees calculation, an updated Bria was published on 23 November, and the updated Bria was informed by consultation responses and other information provided to us, including concerns raised by stakeholders. Part of the process of updating the Bria, the Scottish Government officials and economists worked through all the public information, and information made available to us from stakeholders. We engaged with AirBnB, ASSC, SBBA and local authorities in particular about their concerns around the levels of fee and the impact on the tourism sector. That informed the final version of the Bria. The cost set out in Bria reflect the Scottish Government's best estimates of average costs and fees across Scotland across a range of scenarios. The actual fees to be charged will be determined by local authorities following the Scottish Government guidance, and the average cost will depend on local conditions. The assumptions in our fee model have been informed by discussions with local authority at licensing officials. Importantly, the guidance should be cost recovery, so that it should not go beyond that. There should also be a proportionate risk-based inspection, and that will be set out in guidance. Perhaps that is where there has been some disagreement that worries that every single property will be inspected numerous times over in the course of their licensing scheme. What we have said is that there should be a proportionate risk-based inspection, and that could be based on a number of factors, but that in itself should keep the cost down because it would be the inspection level that would drive any fee costs up. I hope that that will be assuring to the sector. When they see the guidance, that will be set out very clearly around the level of inspection that we would expect local authorities to carry out. As I said, that should be risk-based and not onerous. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for the response. It is helpful that you have confirmed that there will be full cost recovery, but there is still a very wide discrepancy between the figures that have been quoted in the Bria and the figures that have been quoted, for example, by Solar. Can you explain the reason for that gap? You would think that those working in local government would have a closer understanding of the likely costs than Scottish Government officials would have. It is about that proportionate risk-based inspection. If you were to do an analysis of fees that was not based on a risk-based inspection, then of course if you were inspecting every property every year, then of course the fee level would be higher, but we are not asking local authorities to do that. We do not think that that would be proportionate. We are asking them, and the guidance will set out the detail of how we would ask them to do that, to set up a risk-based inspection system, which would mean that, for example, if there had been any concerns about particular properties or if the concerns about a fit and proper person or a range, there would be a range of issues that could be brought to the local authorities' attention, and therefore that would determine which properties might be inspected more than others. The local authorities understand risk and proportionate-based approaches, and that is what we would be asking them to do. That, of course, will help to keep the costs down considerably. I think that that is where the difference will probably lie in the figures at the moment. I have a slightly different question on the costs of compliance, but I do not know whether you want to bring Paul MacLennan in at this point. I think that he had a follow-up on my earlier question. Yes. Paul, would you like to come in now with your statement? Yes, thank you, convener. I refer to my register of interests, my serving councillor, and the initial then councillor at the moment, convener. Just to expand on the question that Mordor Fraser asked, I think that the indications that we have got, cabinet secretary, were that the average fee set out was £436. Some of the feedback that we have got from some tourist body surveys appeared to demonstrate that many operators would leave the industry the result of the licensing scheme. Is that something that you would share with the additional costs? I think that the majority of the operators have already complied with the safety standards. Again, just your thoughts on that and your views on that. Well, many do, and I think that making sure that all do creates that level playing field, and I think that that is important. I have set out the reasons that there perhaps has been a differing approach to the level of fees. I think that guidance will be very important here. I should also say that it should be proportionate to the size of the business. Those large operators with large party houses should pay more than one room in a host house. Clearly, there should be a proportionate ability to pay and the size of business, and that will be set out in the guidance. All of that will mean that the fees should not be onerous. As I said earlier, it should only be cost recovery. All of that taken together will mean that the fees should be manageable and proportionate to the size of the business as well. Thank you, convener. Thank you, Paul. Murdo, do you want to come back in? Yes, thank you, convener. Another question of cost, but from a slightly different angle, because it is not just the cost of the licence fee that has to be considered, is the compliance cost to businesses. I accept the point that the cabinet secretary has made. Some businesses will already comply, but for others, the Bria, in June, calculated compliance costs could be £963. Operators have suggested that the actual average cost could be three times that, as much as £3,000. The difficulty with that is that it then starts to add up to a cumulative set of costs here, which starts to act as a real deterrent to people to participate in the tourist sector. What is being proposed here does not just impact on short-term lets, because the way it is being framed impacts also on small bed and breakfast properties. For example, in the area, I represent a town-like pitlockery, which is very heavily dependent on tourism as a social income. It will have a broad range of small accommodation providers, owner-run bed and breakfasts, which have been caught by that. They see that as simply another form of taxation, because they struggle to see what benefit they get out of the new set of regulations, and yet they will be hit with substantial annual costs in order to comply. Why have bed and breakfast been brought under the ambit of that, when it could potentially make some of the decision not to proceed and just drop out of the industry altogether? The cost of compliance is a set of basic safety standards at the heart of those, and we should all agree that all premises should have that set of basic safety standards. As you said, some are already doing that, but if some are not, they should be, because that creates that level playing field and ensures the safety of those who are using those properties, which is at the heart of those measures. Murdo Fraser went on to talk about bed and breakfast. The set of mandatory standards that will help to protect the safety of guests should apply to all the self-catering sectors. Many hosts across bed and breakfast will already be following those standards as a matter of compliance with existing law or best practice, so we do not consider them to be onerous. The B&Bs have been included from the beginning, and one of the important reasons for that is that, if they were not included, you could have a number of potential relabelling of premises to B&Bs to avoid licensing. That is a concern that has been expressed during the consultation. Trying to differentiate B&Bs from other types of provision would have been very difficult in terms of defining B&Bs compared to other types of provision. All in all, we took the view to leave B&Bs within the scope of the licensing proposals. The point about relabelling is one that would have been a considerable concern should they have been excluded. I have one follow-up question to that. The cabinet secretary might be aware that bed and breakfast owners are at a really tough time over the past couple of years because of a number of restrictions that have impacted on tourism. At the moment, substantial increases in costs—for example, energy costs, which are a major part of the cost base of B&Bs—are increasing substantially. I have certainly seen, in the area that I represent, a lot of people going out of the B&B sector where successful B&Bs have been turned back into private houses. That has a negative impact because it narrows the choice of accommodation for visitors who are so important to the economy, particularly in rural Scotland. I wonder why it was not possible in drafting this to exclude B&Bs where the owners lived on the premises. That would seem to me to be an obvious cut-off point to say that there is a clear distinction between something that is available for short-term life as a discrete set of accommodation, as opposed to a B&B traditionally where the owners live in the same building but provide other services such as providing breakfast or teas and coffees, etc. Was it not possible to draft the legislation in that way? No, that would have been difficult to have had a specific definition that would have excluded some but not others. The danger of redefining some operators could have redefined in order to avoid licensing, as I said earlier. However, the point about not being onerous is important. When it comes to the level of fee, a small B&B operating, the fee should be proportionate to the level and size of the business. I was struck by Andrew Mitchell, who gave evidence from the City of Edinburgh Council. One of the points he made was that the inclusion of traditional B&Bs makes sense. If they are not included, a loophole would be created, which would allow every short-term let to provide a small breakfast and claim that they were exempt from licensing laws. He said that we strongly support the closure of that loophole by including traditional bed and breakfast in the definition, but he went on to say—this is important—that, as I said, each local authority will deploy licensing systems that reflect what it sees as a risk. For example, if somebody is living in a property that is more likely to be the case for traditional B&Bs, they might be subject to a less onerous inspection regime with fewer requirements, and the fee would be proportionate to that. Traditional B&Bs should not be concerned about that at all. There have been a lot of things said that might have worried them. What I would like to say is that we want them to continue. They are an important part of the tourism sector and there is nothing onerous or to be concerned about in those proposals. I think that local authorities will take a sensible approach to the way in which they deploy the licensing scheme that will ensure that traditional B&Bs continue to be supported and that there will be nothing onerous in it for them. I want to continue the line of questioning that Murdo Fraser has with regard to unintended consequences, because industry witnesses have told the committee that licensing of short-term lecs could lead to many owners leaving the industry, potentially costing Scottish tourism tens of millions of pounds of lost revenue annually. I wonder how the cabinet secretary would respond to those claims. I do not think that that will be the case. Over the past few months, the sector has been quite buoyant with the level of staycations that there has been. I will always need to keep an eye on that, because we are in a tricky situation at the moment. However, over the past few months, the self-catering sector has been quite buoyant. In terms of the sector going forward, with the guidance that I talked about earlier and the way in which it will work in practice, the sector does not have anything to be concerned about. Therefore, I do not think that the concerns about people leaving on mass are what would happen. I do not believe that that is what would happen. It is important to note that we have made considerable changes to the proposals that respond to concerns from the sector, from the removal of the minimum EPC requirements through to the removal of over-provision, simplifying many of the aspects that it had raised concerns about. We have listened and we have tried to make that as straightforward as possible. Once it is in operation, I think that operators and hosts will realise that any concerns that they had did not come to pass. In terms of disproportionate impact that we have already touched on, what assessments have been made of those who, for example, rent out a property for the month of August, for example in Edinburgh during the Edinburgh festival or during summer months when we have peak tourism in rural areas? I think that there was real concern expressed that there is going to be a disproportionate impact on small and rural businesses as a percentage of their income around this scheme. Would you share those concerns and how they can be overcome, given that the sector is often very different in different parts of the country at different times of the year? I think that this is the point that Miles Briggs is getting at in terms of facilitating maybe home sharing and bed breakfast. We want to facilitate responsible home sharing, and licensing authorities will have wide discretion in granting temporary exemptions or temporary licences within the powers of the 1982 act in the licensing order, and we will develop the guidance on granting temporary exemptions and temporary licensing with licensing authorities. That would cover things such as short-term temporary periods of letting, such as during the festival, etc. I do not know if Andrew Brown maybe wants to say a little bit more about that in terms of that short period of letting. As the cabinet secretary has said, there are powers for temporary exemptions and temporary licences that could facilitate somebody wanting to rent a room for a short period or whatever. As the cabinet secretary has said, we will produce guidance on that, and it is up to each local authority to determine their own temporary exemption policy. They have quite a wide range of powers there, so some local authorities may want to have those policies and others may not, and they can set certain limitations. For example, you could say that we will grant short temporary exemptions of three weeks for this festival for home sharing, but we will not grant it for secondary letting. There is quite a wide range of powers to facilitate that kind of peak pressure from events. How many of those would you expect to be made available? You will know the pressures of Edinburgh during the festival and, for a lot of people, the fact that they utilise a spare bedroom in their homes to rent that out. I have received emails from constituents who actively say that they need that extra money to make ends meet with the additional costs of energy coming. It is something that people are acutely aware of, having the potential to bring in additional income for them. If councils are deciding, how many would you expect each council to provide, or is there a cap on that expected as well? No, there would not be. It would really be down to the local authority to decide that. They know the area better than we do. For example, Edinburgh City Council will know the requirements during the festival period. It would be for them to decide the appropriate response, and I am sure that they would do that in a sensible way. They want to make sure that there is enough accommodation for people coming to things such as the festival and fringe. I am sure that they would operate the system in a way that they would be able to meet that demand. Thank you, convener. Thank you, Miles. I will now move on to a question from Paul McClellan. Thank you, convener. It just esposes a little bit expansion on what can be done around about modernising the impact of the licensing scheme. Cabinet Secretary mentioned that that was going to be reviewed in 2023. Is there a format to that as yet, or what calls the format that the review looks like in 2023? I think that that is a really important point that you raised earlier on in reviewing that, but I just wondered what that would look like. We have not decided on the format per se, but I would want it to be pretty open. I would want it to take stock from stakeholders, from local residents and communities, from local authorities. The same groups that have been involved in the three consultations so far, we would want to revisit those stakeholders and find out how it is working for them, both as providers, hosts and users of short-term lets and those who are impacted by short-term lets. We want to take that in the round and be pretty open about it. In terms of processing through the clerks, would that come back to the committee, or how would the Scottish Government take that review forward in terms of transparency around how that came out of that review? I am very happy to engage with the committee around that. We can perhaps follow up with some thoughts in new the time about how that might work, but we want to be open and transparent about that process and the committee's involvement in that. That would be very welcome. Thank you very much, convener. Before I ask my questions, I will refer everyone to my register of interests. I am still a serving councillor, any stearser. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Nicola Robison, who was from Police Scotland, told the committee on 14 December that Police Scotland was broadly supportive of the licensing scheme and welcomed the inclusion of the fit and proper person check to ensure safeguarding of guests and neighbours that you have already alluded to. She told the committee about criminal exploitation arising from a lack of regulation. Is the risk of criminal activity an issue recognised by yourself, Cabinet Secretary? How would the licensing scheme help to combat that? Yes. It is a small part of the sector clearly. The sector in the main is law-abiding and provides good and well-safe premises for people to use. I want to put that on the record. Without a doubt, there is some criminality. The evidence given by Nicola Robison from Police Scotland shows that the importance of the fit and proper person test being part of the licensing scheme is critical because it would be able to flag any issues and concerns around someone not being a fit and proper person that could be used by the local authority in terms of the licensing scheme and whether or not to grant a licence. It is a small element, but it is an element that we cannot ignore. Thank you very much for that. We have also heard that tourism stakeholders have raised concerns about the application process being a de facto ban, and they alluded to things that are happening over in Dublin. There is an uncertainty arising from the licensing and renewal process stemming their business. How would you respond to those concerns and are they well founded? No, I do not think that they are well founded. A couple of things about that. Where a licensing authority fails to determine an application on time, the application is deemed granted for a period of one year. A licensing authority cannot kick a licence application into the long grass if that was the concern. Existing posts in the UK before 1 April 2023 continue to operate whilst their licence application is processed, so I do not accept the issue of de facto ban at all. The processes are probably quite different in Dublin than they are here in regard to that application being deemed granted for a period of one year. There is nothing to be gained by delaying applications. Local authorities would want to be very swift and efficient in getting the licensing applications dealt with. Can you reassure us that the licensing authority cannot use the licensing scheme as a means of revenue generation through fees, except to cover its costs? Can you confirm that you will provide guidance? We have already heard a lot about that. Two licences and authorities on parameters are set in the fees, and on other issues that require local flexibility, as you have already said, local authorities know their communities best. The principle is cost recovery only, so they cannot go beyond that. However, the guidance will set out in more detail around what we think is important to make sure that local authorities are following that. We want that to be proportionate. We do not want it to be onerous. The guidance will be very clear on that. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Back to you, convener. Thank you, Eleanor, for those questions. Now we are going to Willie Coffey. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning, minister. I wonder if I could just ask a couple of questions on the issue about deals with broader antisocial behaviour, again, if I may please. We have heard some people giving evidence that we already have powers to deal with antisocial behaviours. On the other hand, I think from the Edinburgh City Council official that the existing powers dealing with antisocial behaviour do not really fit this sector. They are more about long-term behaviours and how we deal with that in a behaviour long-term. There was a balance of view, cabinet secretary, on this issue. Why do you think that the licensing scheme gives us a better solution to deal with that than perhaps a registration scheme might do? I think that we will, first of all, expect all relevant authorities to use all of the powers available to them to deal with antisocial behaviour. We do think that existing antisocial behaviour legislation is better suited to handling issues with longer-term residents, where follow-up and enforcement are more straightforward. I am sure that Willie Coffey, as I have had cases along the lines, it takes some time to get through some of the legislation and support people to do that. The licensing scheme gives local authorities in Police Scotland transparency in knowing who the owners of short-term lets are and ensuring that they are fit and proper to hold a licence, which will also include whether or not there have been issues of antisocial behaviour. The local authorities will have the power to be able to use that in an appropriate way that can meet the needs of their local area. They could also put in proactive conditions, so if a big holiday house has been annoying the neighbours because of people drinking day and all night, they could put in one of the conditions that alcohol cannot be consumed after a certain time. They could do that in a proactive way rather than having to deal with the consequences of antisocial behaviour. It really is about giving local authorities the powers to be able to do that. Licensing authorities might wish to include a condition requiring the licence holder to manage their premises in a way to prevent antisocial behaviour as reasonably practical, as I have just given an example of. We have included a template additional condition relating to antisocial behaviour in the draft guidance that was published in June. We expect local authorities only to impose proportionate additional conditions, where they are necessary. However, if a property has been causing concern in that respect, that might be something that the local authority would want to consider. Could you clarify also, or your legal colleague, if a person was refused a licence or lost their licence if a scheme was to be in that case? Does it become a criminal offence for them to continue to operate a short-term lead? I know of some cases where complaints have been raised with Edinburgh City about antisocial behaviour, but there is nothing that prevents the operator from continuing to operate under those circumstances. Is there a legal advantage to the licensing scheme that would assist us if that problem arose? Can I ask Rachael Toon to come in on that and outline some of the penalties or offences that might be helpful? Absolutely. Good morning, committee. That is correct in terms of bringing short-term lets into the scope of the 1982 powers. In section 7 of that act, it is out that it is an offence to operate a short-term let without a licence. If you were refused a licence or if you lost your licence that you have already been granted for whatever reason, then that would be a statutory criminal offence. In terms of penalties, there are level 4 penalties on the standard scale there. That is in respect of continuing to operate without a licence. There is also the option for a sheriff to convict and imprison a person, as I understand it. I will follow up on that. Is it similarly an offence under a registration scheme to continue to operate if complaints of that nature or antisocial nature have been raised and proven to be correct? Is that also an offence to continue to operate? The registration scheme, as I understand it, as it has been proposed by some stakeholders, would be under the development of tourism act 1969. In terms of that compliance or not with the registration scheme, there is a power to fine, I believe, but it would be a lower fine. As other witnesses have pointed out, it is a self-regulatory scheme. There is not an oversight—body or independent oversight—of compliance or not with the registration scheme. I would like to bring in Fergus Ewing. Good morning, cabinet secretary. You have discussed the desirability of the licensing scheme, and one of the reasons that you have set out is that it would enable the fit and proper person test to be incorporated so that the police concerns could be addressed. That is a very fair point. Is it your suggestion that that fit and proper test cannot be part of a registration scheme? I think that the basket of measures that are in the licensing scheme that come together, is that, as Rachael Hamilton has just outlined, the self-regulatory registration scheme would not have the same requirements on people to comply. The powers that we are giving to local authorities go beyond the core elements of the licensing scheme are also important. The licensing scheme strikes the right balance of making sure that where there is a practice that is not adhering to basic safety standards or essential criminal behaviour, people are not behaving in the way that they should, that extreme end, that there is a proportionate response that can be deployed that I do not believe would be able to be done in the same way under a self-regulatory registration scheme. That is a proportionate and balanced approach. I know the elements of the sector. Otherwise, we have tried to work with them to compromise on some of their concerns, and we have done on many of their concerns that they have raised. We have landed now is a proportionate and balanced approach. I am interested in that reply, because I got the impression from your evidence cabinet secretary earlier that your argument was that a registration scheme, a mandatory registration scheme, because that is what is being proposed. A statutory scheme could be incorporated, of course, but it could not enable the fit and proper person test to be brought in. I am looking at the Scottish Government website here. Landlord registration statutory guidance for local authorities 2017, paragraph 4, the fit and proper test. Local authorities must refuse an application for registration if not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to let houses. The fit and proper person test already applies to the existing landlord registration, and rightly so. Like Mr Fraser, I let on a long-term basis a property. I can recall the form, which I believe requires you to submit if you have had any problems with the police, for example. As far as a fit and proper person is concerned, it seems to me that that is already part of the registration scheme that applies to longlets, and there is absolutely no reason why it should not be applied to a registration scheme for shortlets. As I said, you have to see that as a basket of measures that are proportionate to respond to the very real issues that have been raised by communities. I guess that you could turn that on its head and say, if all of these things are things that the sector wants, then why are they opposing the licensing scheme? What is it about the licensing scheme that they are so opposed to if the registration scheme was going to do exactly the same thing? I would suggest that the registration scheme was not going to do exactly the same thing, and that we require the ability of the local authority to have the powers to refuse a licence if someone is not operating in a way that is safe or in a way that is responsible, and to be able to use the additional powers that they have to deal with some very real issues that local residents and communities have raised. I believe that a license scheme does that in a way that a registration scheme would not. The fundamental difference between a licensing scheme and a notification scheme is very simple. The Scottish local authorities will have the power to refuse a licence. That means that the business will be terminated. That is not part of a notification scheme. Therefore, the difference is inherent and draconian. There are 17,794 properties in Scotland contributing £867 million to the economy and 23,979 full-time equivalent jobs. The Airbnb figures estimate around 30,000 properties. All of those tens of thousands of properties now will have some fear that their business might be confiscated or terminated. That is the difference between the two. However, since the cabinet secretary has raised anti-social behaviour and safety standards, I did not want to probe her answers and colleagues' helpful questions on a couple of aspects about them specifically. In relation to fire and electricity standards, the law already exists on all those things. Indeed, when she wrote to the committee on 7 October that the cabinet secretary made it absolutely clear that the regulations do not enhance or change the existing law, it already applies to all properties quite rightly so. In fact, she said that we are reviewing the fire and safety electricity requirements to ensure that they do not go further than the existing law. If the rules do not enhance or increase the standards, the only way that the protection that she referred to would be conferred by those regulations could possibly apply would be if every single property were inspected regularly. However, in reading the revised Bria as I did yesterday, it makes it absolutely clear that mandatory inspections are by no means required. It specifically says that that is not a requirement. I do not quite see how, if there will be no mandatory inspections, I am not arguing that there should be, cabinet secretary. However, if there are no mandatory inspections and the law remains exactly the same as it was before, in what way can she justify the assertion that those regulations have passed would provide any additional protection? To take Fergus Ewing's first point about the ability to refuse a licence, he is right in one sense that the vast majority of the sector are law abiding good providers and provide a very important element of the tourism economy. I absolutely agree with that, but is it not right that those who do not abide by the law and are not providing safe spaces for people to stay, should they not be refused a licence? Why should they be able to operate when the person down the road is doing everything that they can to make sure that their short-term let is a safe place? Why should the person down the road who is not doing that not have consequences to that? The ability to refuse a licence is an important difference between the licensing and registration schemes. In many ways, Fergus Ewing makes the point for me that that is the whole point. If someone is not complying, that is unfair and not a level playing field, and therefore it should have their licence refused on that basis. Those who are abiding have nothing to fear from the licensing system. On the fire safety guidance, Fergus Ewing will know for existing premises with sleeping accommodation that was published back in June 2018. Part 3 of the Fire Scotland 2005 act, along with the Fire Safety Scotland regulations, set out the fire safety duties in respect of the majority of non-domestic premises in Scotland. Obviously, not all short-term lets are businesses, so it is important that we have a mandatory condition of a licence. It gives all the protection to anybody using any type of short-term let, and the licensing order puts some basic requirements in place for all short-term lets in terms of safety measures. I do not know whether Andrew or Rachel might want to come in on that. Maybe Rachel from the legal point of view. Yes, thank you. I wonder before I do that. May I just make a quick clarification on the evidence that I gave earlier in response to Mr Coffey's question, if that is possible? Just to clarify, and my apologies for that, in regards to penalties, was there a failure to comply with a continuation of operating without a licence that the penalty specifically in regard to short-term lets would be a level 4 fine on the standard scale and not imprisonment? My apologies for giving some incorrect information in regards to the legislation there. In respect of the question regarding safety conditions, I think that I would just clarify that, although the statutory duties already exist, the purpose of putting them into the requirements of a licence is to ensure that compliance with them makes it a requirement to obtain a licence and thereafter to remain licensed. Anything within those mandatory conditions that would not be in line with current requirements and non-domestic properties in regard to the fire safety act would basically nothing contradict anything that was already in place in regard to the 2005 act of fire safety requirements? Thank you for those answers. I just make the point that those duties, as Rachel Nicholson has just confirmed, apply to everybody anyway. Obviously, all of us want to see the law applied and observed by everybody. I also make the point that neither hotels nor long-term lets are subject to a licensing requirement. If consistency was the cinequanone, the essential element, it is not there because various types of premises do not have to follow the requirements of a licensing requirement, which carries with it the risk that people can lose their business, which is particularly coming out of a pandemic—a pretty serious threat hanging over them like a sort of Damocles over the next few years. However, I wanted to turn to antisocial behaviour because, contrary to what seems to have been said before, there is surely, cabinet secretary, specific legislation dealing with antisocial behaviour in holiday lets. Namely, through the antisocial behaviour, notice brackets, houses used for holiday purposes, closed brackets, Scotland Order 2011. That legislation exists. The local authorities have the power to deal with antisocial behaviour as it occurs in shortlets. I would ask the cabinet secretary why it is necessary to bring forward a licensing requirement when local authorities already have the powers that are required to deal with any such behaviour should occur in shortletting properties. As I said earlier on, I recognise what Fergus Ewing has said, but in looking at all the issues in detail, one of the things that I spoke about earlier on was the proactive ability of local authorities to put proactive requirements in place to prevent antisocial behaviour, and it is really bringing all of that into the one place so that local authorities, in looking at short-term lets, can use some of the existing powers, if they so wish, but they can also look at all of those issues through the licensing scheme. As I gave an example around hours of drinking, for example, if a holiday let has become a place where it is causing significant concern to neighbours that they could put proactive requirements and conditions in place. Fergus Ewing said about the concern, and I recognise that the pandemic has had an impact on the tourism sector. I think that there are certainly signals over the past few months that the self-catering sector, the short-term let sector in Scotland has been recovering pretty well with the burgeon of staycations, but we have got to keep an eye on that, obviously. I think that the Government has recognised the impact of the pandemic on the tourism sector, not least with the 100 per cent NDR relief for hospitality premises. Of course, that will continue at 50 per cent for the next year, as I announced in the budget, plus all the support that is given to businesses, the small business bonus. It is not a fair accusation to say that the Government has not supported local businesses, including those in the hospitality sector. That is not an onerous set of requirements. I think that once it is up and running, the sector will see that. A lot has been said that, of course, it may concern people if they were to hear that and to think that they are going to have to pay thousands of pounds for a licence. They will not. It will be a proportionate-based scheme. Small operators will pay less than big operators, and local authorities will be given strong guidance to ensure that that is based on a risk-based inspection regime that is not onerous and should not drive up costs. All I can say is to try to reassure the sector of those things. I will continue to try to do that over the next few months, as we bring those measures forward. I hear what the cabinet secretary says, and I understand her sincerity behind those thoughts. It is fair to say that, particularly larger lets in the self-caging sector have hardly had any real Covid rules quite correctly, so they really have had a tough time over the past wee while. The uncertainty remains for the whole sector. My point is that the registration would, as the sector incidentally proposed, deny that there was consultation in 2019 and maintain that it proposed a fit and proper person test incidentally. I would like to place that in record. However, what we heard in evidence two weeks ago, cabinet secretary, and I was able to attend that meeting myself, was that the whole sector is united in favour of a registration scheme, the whole short-let sector. It also has support from the Federation of Small Business, Scotland and the States, Scottish Agri-Tourism, the NFU and all the short-letting organisations. I would point out that several of those bodies left the working group because they felt that it was not to mention my words a sham and that it was not addressing their concerns in any way. Recently, the cabinet secretary will know that the Highland Council passed after a vote their view in favour of registration, not licensing. That seems to me to be the final point. The last question that I would like to ask the cabinet secretary, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do that today, because it is essential for my constituency and the Highlands and Islands in particular, is that where we have such a draconian power of the state via local authorities to terminate businesses? Is it not a very serious failing of the regulations that there are no set clear rules or criteria governing how this crucial decision should be taken? I have searched in vain among the regulations to see what criteria there are, that local authorities must follow. There are none whatsoever. When we hear from evidence, as we did last week from someone speaking on behalf of chief housing officers of local authorities, that I am quoting here, we simply now need to select those businesses that can no longer operate, surely that must strike fear into businesses that are being told that some of them must be selected for closure before the regulations have even come in by a senior figure speaking on behalf, apparently, of the local authority family. I will leave it with you, cabinet secretary. There must be concerns about judicial review on the grounds of irrationality and arbitrariness and the lack of a clear set of rules, but it is not really too late for the Scottish Government to say that they look again at a registration scheme that would deal with the fit and proper person as the registration scheme does for letting longer-term residential properties. It is not too late for any Government to reconsider, as we have seen with one or two others such as the named person, and the public generally appreciate when we accept that we have got it wrong. Surely, cabinet secretary, the licensing scheme is just too draconian, it is too unfair, there are no set of rules, and there will now be a period of division and difficulty and anxiety amongst tens of thousands of law-abiding small businesses in Scotland that have done nothing to deserve this threat that is now being placed over there. I do not accept that. I do not accept that it is draconian. I do not accept that it is irrational and I do not accept that it is arbitrary. I think that it is proportionate. Along with the guidance, that will require local authorities to act in a proportionate way. Fergus Ewing will know, as a former minister, that whenever a Government brings in any change, there will be quite often opposition to that change. There will be concerns about impact that does not always necessarily equate to the reality of the situation. What I have tried to set out today is the reality of the situation that none of that is intended to close any business other than those that are operating out with the law and are not operating safe premises. I have set out that we want to make sure that the costs are proportionate and kept proportionate to the size of the business. Fergus Ewing mentioned Highland Council. Highland Council was supportive of those measures when it responded to the consultation. I cannot speak for them in terms of the vote that they then took, but their response to consultation was fully supportive of those measures. That is something for Highland Council to deal with. I recognise that stakeholders left the working group. At that point, they felt that they could not support a licensing scheme and that that was the direction of travel, that was their decision. However, I have had productive discussions with the key organisations that Fergus Ewing referred to. There will not be a meeting of minds on the issue of the licensing scheme, but most have said that they want to get back round the table in a working group environment to talk about the implementation of the detail. That is a responsible attitude to take. I look forward to working with them on making sure that the detail and the issues that Fergus Ewing raised are discussed and that the guidance is clear and that we do not have local authorities. They do not want to take a disproportionate response, but let us make sure that the guidance is very strong to give further assurance to the sector. I will end on that. We have talked about the registration versus the licensing scheme. I come back to the fundamental point. If an operator is putting people potentially at risk because they are not operating in a manner that they should, or there is criminality, or there is antisocial behaviour that makes people's lives around them a misery, surely in those circumstances the local authority would be correct in considering refusing a licence or removing a licence. However, you are talking about those very small cases where those would arise, not with the law-abiding good providers who will go about their business with the licensing scheme in place in the same way as they have before it was in place. We will continue to support them in the sector because we know that they provide an important part of the Scottish economy. I will continue to reassure the sector about the licensing scheme so that they have nothing to fear from it. I believe that we have come to the end of the question, so I would like to say thank you Cabinet Secretary and to Andrew Maw and Rachel Nicholson for bringing for that thorough evidence. We are going to move on to the fourth item. The fourth item on our agenda today is consideration of motion S6M-02265 that the local government housing and planning committee recommends that the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982 licensing of short-term lets order 2022 be approved. I would like to invite the cabinet secretary to speak and move the motion. I would like to invite members who would like to speak to the motion to put on our in the chat. I see that we have Miles Briggs, Eleanor Whitham, Mark Griffin. Miles, would you like to start? Throughout the passage of the legislation and the regulations, it has been concerning, and I have been very much taken by those who are industry experts and those who are at the front line of their businesses being impacted. They feel that there are real unintended consequences through these regulations and the potential to negatively impact on a very fragile sector. Given the pandemic and the impact that it has had, I think that that is something that we should be mindful of. My own personal view is that I do not believe that Scottish ministers have considered the alternatives in good faith. I have been taken by what has been presented to the committee in terms of a registration scheme, for example, meeting the outcomes that ministers have set out rather than a licensing scheme. I am concerned that those regulations go too far. One of the key points of that in enclosing is the letter that the industry has sent to the First Minister. That includes the Association of Scotland Self-Caterers, a professional association of self-caterers UK, Scottish Agri-Tourism, Scotland's best B&Bs, the Scottish Bed and Breakfast Association and Scotland, Land and Estates. I specifically say that it makes no mistake that this onerous and costly licensing scheme will cause many traditional self-caterers and B&B operators to leave the sector, hitting the supply chain and local economies in the process, and reducing the diversity of accommodation available in Scotland's capacity to welcome visitors to our country. With all that in mind, and given the impact that the pandemic has had, I do not believe that we should be moving those regulations, so I would ask that the committee vote against them. Thank you. It is clear to me that local authorities must balance the needs and concerns of the communities that they serve with the wider tourism sector and local short-term owners. While short-term lets are a flexible option for individuals, we must balance that with the overall safety, the loss of residential housing stock, the antisocial behaviour that we can see, the potential criminal activity that occurs, while also creating a level playing field across the sector. On balance, I do not feel that a licensing scheme would be overly onerous and I move that we agree the motion as laid down by the cabinet secretary. Mark Griffin, followed by Paul McClellan, and then Fergus Ewing. I will brief, just wanted to say an outset that has been quite heavily influenced by the evidence given, particularly by Police Scotland in our last evidence session on the need to introduce a degree of licensing. It is fair to say that I would have preferred to see a pilot project introduced at the early stage to see how it could be operated and give assurance to the sector or potentially local discretion to deliver to all local authorities to give. The evidence ability to decide if it was suitable for their area and consultation with three or more communities in Police Scotland. However, in the absence of any alternative proposals—we know what committee is at their place—I would support the proposals and the knowledge that there will be a review in 2023 and, as the cabinet secretary has set out, that industry wants to get back round the table to seriously discuss the implementation. Thank you, Mark. Paul, Fergus and then Willie Coffey. Thank you, convener. I think that it is safe to say that we have all listened to the sector extensively over a period of time, both through the committee and outwith. I think that there are a few key factors for myself. With the local authority background, I think that it is just a case of cost recovery. It is incredibly important, because we need to take the views of the cost in terms of where we are in terms of the pandemic and covering it. However, I think that we have taken evidence at committee around the costs. I am convinced that the costs have been mentioned. I think that it was £464 that has mentioned the average cost in the Bria. That would be proportionally to the size of the business. That works out at £9 per week. I think that that is the key thing for me. Like Mark Griffin, I was persuaded by the evidence from Police Scotland about looking in and about fit and responsible people. I think that that is important. I think that the key thing is that, again, I might be addressing the point that Fergus Ewing made, that responsible operators have nothing to fear from this at all. Absolutely nothing to fear. The vast majority of operators operate extensively. However, there are issues around people who do not. We need to make sure that we drive up the standards of the sector. Again, I am convinced, like Mark Griffin, of the review in 2023. That is why I asked that question. I am convinced by what the cabinet secretary has said that we will come back in 2023. In this committee, we will have a look at that. I will be supporting the proposals that the cabinet secretary has put forward. Thank you, Paul. Fergus, would you like to come in now? Yes, thank you, convener. I absolutely agree with the sentiments that the cabinet secretary has expressed here about the need to provide as far as we can a system that protects the public. I think that getting to the nub of things, if I may, convener, because I have made some remarks already and I want to repeat them. If it were the case that we needed licensing simply in order because of the police evidence, the regulations should have said that the licence will be granted unless there are good reasons not to. One of those good reasons would have been that the applicant was not a fit and proper person on the basis of the police information. However, that is not what we are presented with here, convener. I made the point to the cabinet secretary that there are no criteria, there are no rules, there is nothing to fetter the discretion of our local authorities in their decision as to whether to grant or refuse a licence. I think that everyone would agree that, if you have a hoodlum, a money launderer, a drug dealer who is laundering money through property, that there must be means of dealing with that. I think that there actually are, and that he should not be given a licence to conduct such a business or other businesses. That is not what the regulations say. The regulations do not delimit the discretion to that particular issue. Moreover, I think that I have already proven, convener, by reading out from the Scottish Government's own website that the fit and proper person test applies to a registration scheme. It applies to me as a landlord, and rightly so. I am glad that it applies. The idea that we need a licensing scheme to deal with the police concern seems to me not to have been made out. The second point that I wanted to make was that I did earlier a loop to concerns that precisely because the rules have not been specified and local authorities have unfettered discretion paving the way for 31 different varieties of decision making incidentally. That means that the position of those businesses, many of whom have operated for decades, is that they may face the unilateral withdrawal and confiscation of their business by the decision of a local authority, which they cannot challenge on the basis of any clear rules. Now, although no legal expert, convener, I am aware of cases where the Scottish Government has failed because of breach of article 1 in the first protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights, namely the provision that says that every natural person has the right to protection of their own possessions, except in the interests of public policy. If there had been a clear public policy interest expressed in those regulations, that might have enabled the Government to say that they had acted reasonably. However, because there is none, it does appear to me that although there was a non-expert, there is a risk of arbitrariness and the Wensbury test, which I believe applies, it seems to me to be at serious risk of being at issue. I do not make that argument enthusiastically or lightly, but because I am genuinely concerned about that. I would also point out, convener, that, as the cabinet secretary is aware, the association of Scottish self-caterers has already shared an opinion that they have had from an eminent firm of solicitors in Scotland. I am informed, although I have not seen the evidence myself, that three other equally eminent firms of solicitors in Scotland have also opined on this issue. I stress that I have not seen whether their view is that there is a prima facie breach and that judicial review may therefore be successful. I put it to you as a matter of common sense and to the members of the committee, that if there is a system where somebody's property can be taken away, somebody's business can be terminated, then surely there should be a very clear set of rules governing in what circumstances that can happen. It is all very well to say that, oh well, the fears that have been raised are alarmist or scaremongering or whatever, but because there is no set of clear rules in those regulations, what are people to think? Moreover, convener, if there is the possibility of licences withdrawn and the licensing system takes several years to operate, between the application of the licence and the determination, there will be a period of long uncertainty. What happens to bookings during that period and cancellations? What happens to the business if the licences are refused? None of this has, I am afraid, been answered. Convener, there are many other arguments that I could put, but I think that I have probably said enough to indicate that I am not a fan of those regulations. The last thing that I would say to the cabinet secretary is that it is never too late to look again at this. I hope that she will, as she has promised, to engage with the sector before this comes to plenary session in the event that it has passed today, as I suspect it will be, in order to look further at the very real concerns of the sector and the very real and serious and sincere alternative proposals that operate in Europe, which are favoured by the EU, incidentally, including the exemplar in Portugal. You will wind up now, Mr Ewing, please. Yes, and my last sub-clause, which I think should provide a clear way forward. Thank you, convener. I think that the evidence that we heard particularly from Police Scotland was pretty compelling, and I think that members would do well to listen to that advice that we got during that session. We need to be able to deal effectively with some of the issues that are impacting on local people, and there should be no fear whatsoever in my view that an operator is not complying with that licensing scheme. It will also help us to drive up and maintain standards across the sector so that responsible operators are not disadvantaged by those who might prefer to operate in the absence of any regulation whatsoever. I support the proposal, convener. Thank you very much, Willie Coffey. Thank you everyone for your contributions. I want to thank the cabinet secretary for your thorough evidence in setting out Scottish Government's intentions with the legislation, so clearly. Short-term lets have been with us for about 10 years, and while they provide an important contribution to the tourism sector, as well as an income stream for those operating them, it has taken us that time to see the impacts that they have on our neighbours and communities. Unregulated short-term lets have inadvertently begun to shape and negatively impact our rural and urban communities. We have heard how local people or public sector workers, teachers, doctors and even people who work in the tourism sector struggle to find affordable housing in areas where short-term lets proliferate. In the case of the licensing regulations, we have learned of a range of problems from what was once a small cottage being transformed through extensions into a party house, bringing with it noise and lack of contribution to local services to some levels, as we have heard today, of criminality, calling for the need for the fit and proper part of the licensing scheme. Last week, we heard from the challenges faced by Police Scotland and local authorities, as other members have indicated. We also heard from Elsa Rayburn that this is big business and that data shows that almost 40 per cent of owners in Scotland have more than three properties, while 8 per cent have more than 100 properties being run as short-term lets. We have heard about the concerns of the burden that the licensing system will place on short-term lets providers, but I believe that the cost will be proportionate, as we have heard through evidence, and in terms of the process I trust our local authorities to come up with one that is efficient and easy to use both for the licensing application and renewal. Those short-term lets, licensing and control area regulations are two pieces of legislation that will work together to help us to ensure that we have communities where local people who want to continue to live there or public service workers who are coming to live in the community to provide much-needed services can find a home. I thank the cabinet secretary for indicating that we will have the opportunity in 2023 to review how the regulations are working and to revisit the possibility of over-provision regulations. At a time when we recognise the importance of maintaining rural populations, focusing on place-making and creating 20-minute neighbourhoods, we must use legislation design at Scotland where people can live safely and be close to where they work. Those SSIs are part of other measures that we need to take to support our communities and address the urgent need to provide local, affordable, adequate and accessible housing. I invite the cabinet secretary to wind up. Thank you. On your point, convener, that review point is important. It will give us the opportunity to look at whether there is more that needs to be done but also the operation of the licensing system. As I said earlier, I am happy to involve the committee in that. If I could respond to a couple of the points that Miles Briggs will be well aware of, as a Lothian member of the concerns of his constituents about short-term lets and, of course, the decision of the City of Edinburgh Council through Andrew Mitchell's evidence was very supportive of those measures to help to, as a basket of measures, to deal with some of those concerns. Eleanor Whitham said about the balancing of those concerns with stakeholders in communities. That is absolutely right, and we have tried to do that through the proposals. We have made a lot of changes, brought a lot of amendments in response to listening to many of those concerns. I think that the evidence from Police Scotland was a very important piece of evidence. I also recognise the point about the review in 2023. Paul McClellan on cost recovery and the fact that responsible operators have nothing to fear from this is absolutely the case. I just want to end by responding to a couple of the points that Fergus Ewing made. I will not respond to them all because it would take too long. I will not repeat all that I have said, but obviously, when the Government, as he will know, brings forward legislation, then it will have gone through a series of legal tests, as he will know. I would say that some of the points that he made do not recognise that a lot of the space is a base around the 1982 act, which applications are approved unless there are good reasons for refusal. Some of the reasons are set out in the 1982 act. Paragraph 5 of schedule 1 of the 1982 act, to be precise, and the legal position is that the scheme is, of course, compliant with the right to possessions clause. Introducing regulation in a proportionate way that has been subject to careful scrutiny is an important point. It is being introduced by way of existing, a well-used statutory framework that is well understood by local authorities. I do not think that local authorities will be setting out to try and close local businesses down. What possible motivation would they have to do so in that area? I think that they will use that in a proportionate way that deals with the very real issues that local communities are raising, but also supports those good providers who are law abiding, who abide by the rules and create a level playing field to make sure that those who do not behaviours can be addressed through the licensing scheme. I am now going to move forward with the motion. The question is that motion S6M-02265, in the name of Shona Robison, be approved. Are we all agreed? No, okay, great. We are going to use a voting system in the chat function of the online broadcasting. I think that you and our clerk are going to start us off there, so that we can put your eyes on the chat. That would be great. We are just going to take our time with this online process. We have got in the chat, please. Could those in favour press Y when asked by the convener? For all those in favour of the motion, please put the Y. Thank you. All against the motion, thank you. Any abstentions, abstentions? Even? No abstentions. Okay, so we're just going to get the results. Oh, I haven't, yes. The results are 5, 4, that's Ellen Awitam, Willie Coffey, Paul McClellan, Mark Griffin and Ariane Burgess against two Miles Briggs and Murdo Fraser and there were no abstentions. We will confirm those results in the committee's report. The fifth item on our agenda today is consideration of motion S6M-02264 that the local government housing and planning committee recommends that the town and country planning short-term lets control areas Scotland amendment regulations 2022 be approved. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak and move the motion. I would like to see indications of any members who wish to speak to this. No indication for anyone to speak. The question is that motion S6M-02264 in the name of Shona Robison be approved. Are we all agreed? It looks like we're not all agreed. Can I just have indications of shakes of heads? Are we all agreed? Okay, so we're going to do the voting in the chat again. Everyone in favour of the motion, please put a Y in the chat. Everyone against approval of the motion and any abstentions. Okay, no abstentions. Okay, so let's just pull those results together. So, we have five, four, Eleanor Whitton, Willie Coffey, Paul McClellan, Mark Griffin and Ariane Burgess and two against Miles Briggs and Murdo Fraser and we will put the results in the outcome of the debate in our committee's report. As agreed earlier in the morning, we will consider items 6, 7 and 8 in private and I now thank the cabinet secretary and her officials and close the public part of the meeting and we will move into private.