 The next item of business, as a follow-on business, is a debate on motion 10411, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on pausing the short-term let's licensing scheme. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request-to-speak buttons and I call on Murdo Fraser to speak to and to move the motion up to 11 minutes, please, Mr Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The tourist sector is vitally important for Scotland. It is the largest part of our economy in terms of employment and is particularly important in remote and rural areas where other job opportunities may be limited. It is made up of thousands of small operators right across the country, often self-employed. Yet this vital sector is today under an existential threat due to the botched introduction of a licensing scheme for short-term let's, the unintended consequences of which are already causing huge concern and could see the shedding of thousands of jobs. It is a direct result of the actions of this Scottish Government and it is entirely in their gift to resolve this issue. That is why today the Scottish Conservatives have taken this debate to the chamber. Asking the Scottish Government, even at this late hour, to pause for one year the introduction of their licensing scheme to allow for a full review and consideration of those unintended consequences. I appeal to ministers to listen to what we and others are saying in this debate, to what industry bodies and the wider business sector are saying outside this chamber and to take a common sense approach and agree a halt, otherwise the consequences for the wider Scottish economy could be devastating. I do not know of anyone in this debate who does not think some level of regulation for self-catering is unnecessary. There is a well-documented problem with what are known as party flats, particularly in city centre locations causing disruption for permanent residents. The actual numbers may well be small in relation to the overall size of the industry, but it is nevertheless an issue that does need to be addressed, and we have never argued otherwise. Of course, councils already have power to grant or withhold planning consent for the operation of short-term lets. In addition, we now have short-term-let control areas in which councils have the power to introduce and to operate. A well-regulated short-term-let sector is a social good. It is important not just to tourists, although it is very important to the tourist economy, but many other sectors of society, including commercial travellers, such as those whose work takes them to different parts of the country on a regular basis, such as those needing somewhere to stay on a temporary basis while perhaps moving house, or while having renovation works done to their property, or even victims of domestic abuse who need to find temporary accommodation and need access to short-term lets. Not everyone wants to stay in a hotel and the privacy, affordability and convenience of a short-term let makes sense for many people. One of the problems with the Scottish Government licensing scheme is that it does not just affect stand-alone self-catering units, which are apparently the cause of the issues that we hear about. It also affects individuals who let out their spare rooms. An issue in Edinburgh during the festival, as we have just seen, is when many performers and visitors come and stay in people's houses. It is no wonder that among festival organisers there is a real concern as to whether the city will provide sufficient accommodation in future years to allow our very successful festivals such an important part of the city economy here in Edinburgh to continue. The licensing scheme also impacts traditional bed and breakfasts and guest houses. Already well-regulated sectors of the market have to comply with a whole host of regulations and yet an additional set of burdens and costs are put on them. It even applies to people's swaps houses with others in a different country. There is no evidence whatsoever that the categories that I have referred to are generating complaints about antisocial behaviour, but they are all caught up in the new rules. Already there is evidence that operators are simply not applying for a licence, and therefore many are potentially intending to leave the market. The cost of bureaucracy involved in making an application means that, for those running a small operation, such as letting out one bedroom in a bed and breakfast, it is asking themselves if it is worth their while going to the cost of applying for a licence. The consequence will be a shrinkage in the provision of accommodation for visitors and an impact on the very tourist sector on which we as a country rely so heavily. I will give way to Mr Johnson. I am very grateful to the member for giving way. I think that he is right about those who may be making that choice, but there are many operators who simply do not know that the legislation and regulation applies to them. I have knocked on doors in my constituency where B&Bs have thought that, because they have not received any correspondence, that simply they do not need to apply because it does not apply to them and it does. Is that not a very big problem? Mr Johnson is absolutely correct to raise that particular issue. As of August, 84 per cent of short-term lets had not applied for a licence. That suggests that there is a major issue with people not being aware of that requirement. I have heard anecdotally, and I am sure that others in the chamber have too, of operators who are simply not aware, including people who are operating bed and breakfast, who are simply not aware that those regulations are coming in and that they require to comply with that otherwise, potentially, they will be committing an offence after 1 October, if they have not applied. There was never any need for a one-size-fits-all approach to legislation. It would have been perfectly possible for the Scottish Government to have devolved to local councils the right to draw up rules for their own areas. Those were the history of complaints about the operation of self-catering lets that have had the opportunity to take a different approach from those in other, perhaps more rural areas where self-catering lets have been operating as part of the tourist sector for decades more without any problems appearing. It is a source of regret that the Scottish Government decided to introduce a national scheme instead of letting councils have the discretion whether to introduce it locally. Those who support the legislation would argue that a proliferation of short-term lets drives up housing costs, reduces affordability and contributes to a cost of housing crisis. I would point them to the analysis done by the Fraser of Allander Institute of the Business Regulatory Impact Assessment for the legislation. That reveals that the Scottish Government has made no attempt to quantify the number of properties that might be released from secondary letting and then made available as permanent homes as a result of the licensing scheme. In the words of Fraser of Allander, section E of the BRIA is and I quote, notable for the absence of any quantification of impacts. The headline figures quoted for the numbers involved in short-term lets include those renting out their spare rooms. It must surely be highly unlikely that, should they cease this activity, they are going to be selling up and thus providing additional accommodation for those currently seeking it. Such anecdotal information that we have to date supports the view that there will be no boom in affordable properties as a consequence of the legislation. Quoted in the Herald newspaper just last week, Mark Tate, the chief executive of the Cairngorms Chamber of Commerce, stated that of the 16 properties in his area, he was aware of that, so far withdrawn from the market, as a result of the new rules, 12 had become second homes. Those have gone from being economically active for 35 to 40 weeks of the year, occupied by people coming to visit and putting money into the economy to be occupied for no more than two to three weeks in the year. It is the worst possible outcome. Does he agree with me that this Government is woefully ignoring the very real fears of those operating in the short-term lets sector? Is he aware of the case of my constituent Linda, who went to discuss her plight with Paul McLennan, her constituency MSP, and the minister responsible for this policy? Linda told him that she stands to lose her only source of income, her entire business and possibly the roof over her head as a result of his short-term lets policy. Mr McLennan's response was that she ought to start looking for another job. Does the member agree with me that this shows the utter and complete contempt of this minister and this Government towards those who live in and work in our short-term lets and B&B sectors, and given the chaos and harm that this policy will inflict, should it not be Mr McLennan, rather than Linda, who is looking for another job? Excuse me, the minister would intervene on the member, not on me, I do not know. I should say to the minister, who I will give way to in a second, but I should to the minister, I met Linda last week and the story that she told me was actually even worse than the one that Mr Hoy has recounted. Not only did Mr McLennan tell her that she should look for another job, subsequently a member of staff said that she could go on benefits, should she not be able to get a job. Mr McLennan owes Linda an apology. Will he give her one now? I met the constituent and agreed to try to help the constituent to ask for additional information, which was never received, and that is noted. I want to say that on that matter. Well, no apology from the minister to Linda for her member of staff telling her that she can go on benefits because this Government is going to take away her business. Back to the point that I was making, there is no evidence that we are going to see more availability of properties. Colleagues will be familiar with a pattern in many rural areas, including the highlands and the islands, where individuals will often inherit a rural property such as a croft house to which they have a strong family and nostalgic attachment, and those houses are then retained by families, or perhaps used for a few weeks a year by family members, but are rented out to visitors on a short-term basis when they are not in use. The consequence of the legislation is that people decide that they are not going to let them out as self-catering units. All that is going to happen is that they are going to lie empty for much of the year with a loss of spending power to visitors in those communities. It is also a fact that, in many rural areas, the properties that are available for short-term lets can often be large multi-room lodges, often in very remote locations, which by no stretch of the imagination would ever be affordable accommodation for local families. There is little prospect of the legislation helping to address the housing crisis that exists in many parts of Scotland. The answer to that is simple. We must build more houses and make sure that they are affordable. Today, we learned that the construction of affordable housing in Scotland is at a 10-year low under this Government. That is the answer to the housing crisis. There is no point in Mr Lockhead waving at us. As he has been in the Government for 16 years. I was just reminding members that the minister should resume your seat. I was reminding members that they should perhaps just be listening to the person who has the floor and not making sedentary interventions. Murdo Fraser, you have the floor but you should be thinking of— I will happily take another intervention if I have time. I am afraid that you do not have time to take another intervention but you have a bit of latitude because you have already taken three interventions. You are over your time but I will allow you sufficient time to conclude your remarks. I apologise to the minister. I am not permitted to take another intervention, but we will be hearing from him in a moment. In conclusion, no one in this debate is opposed to sensible and proportionate regulation. What is being introduced by this Scottish Government is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut. Even at this sledgehammer, we would call on the Scottish Government to think again. This is a Government that claims that it wants to reset its relationship with Scottish business. It has a new deal for business group established. Today is the first test of whether that approach amounts to anything more than empty words. If the Scottish Government is serious about listening to business, about avoiding the damage to the vital tourist sector, it needs to agree a pause in the legislation to allow a proper review. That is what our motion says and I am pleased to move it. I would advise that we have some time in hand at the moment and therefore, where interventions are taken, I have a bit more latitude to allow time back for the member who is making the contribution. I now call Paul MacLennan minister to speak to and to move amendment 10411.3, up to nine minutes please. I formally move the motion in my name and just the point about to make an intervention what Mr Fraser did not mention in terms of that. There was also a 23-year high in terms of completions that the Scottish Government has brought forward. If we are going to be talking about impacts on house building, all we need to look at is interest rates and construction inflation brought forward by this conservative Government. I want to touch on that point and put that on record. I want to put it on record, as my colleagues have previously said in this chamber, my unwavering support for the many excellent businesses that provide short-term let accommodation in Scotland. In recent years, this industry has grown significantly, which has brought about an increased range of choice for visitors and a boost for regional economies. The ripple effect of good business supporting good business. However, for well over five years, parties across this chamber, all parties have urged us to take action to regulate the growth of short-term lets. Noting that growth and good quality do not always go hand in hand and there was an increasing concern among members in a wider society about the impact on communities, which I am sure we will hear about later on. The introduction of licences and safeguards, if I can make some progress first of all. The introduction of licences and safeguards is the role that short-term lets play in our economy by providing assurance to guests on safety and quality and brings this sector into line with other accommodations such as Tells, levelling the playing field to protect the reputation of well-managed businesses. I also want to make it clear that our thousands of good quality operators at the moment-based standards are not always being met. We are a Government that believes in fair regulation and we do not believe that asking short-term let operators to comply with mandatory conditions and completing licences application is too much to ask. Quality and safety are at the heart of our scheme, where the accommodation is being offered as additional bed and breakfast, other home sharing arrangements are standalone self-cating accommodation. That was an aspect that was as well tested through the three public consultations and the development of legislation in this Parliament. The safety component is mandated for all types of visitor accommodation in Scotland. I am happy to take your intervention, Mr Johnson. Daniel Johnson I thank the minister for taking the intervention. It is important that we have clarity on the terms of the debate. He talked at the beginning of his statement about tackling the growth in short-term let's. Let's be clear that it's the planning process that controls growth. Is it not correct that licensing cannot control the numbers simply standards just so that we are clear on the terms of the debate? Of course, in the short-term, controlling is and which I will touch on later on as part of that much broader debate that we are touching on, but we are talking about licensing here as which I think is incredibly important. There are various quotes from various members in the debate going back to that time talking about that particular issue and about how we need to monitor the standards of safety around that. I will touch on that later on in the debate. As we approach the first of October deadline, it is important that colleagues across the chamber do the right thing to encourage and support operators to apply to the scheme. In fact, yesterday, I wrote to all MSPs setting out some key information on the scheme, which I hope they will find helpful to share with their constituents. I do not want to make progress. Local authorities stand ready to support applicants having already accommodated a six-month delay to their original implementation plans. I would like to recognise their role as statutory licensing bodies who have already processed thousands of applications. I have met Solar on a number of occasions and spoke to them about that. Some of the comments coming through that were applicants stating that the process was much simpler than they were told previously. In Edinburgh, the council also applied to us for short-term control area, as Mr Johnson knows. At that time, in summer 2022, Cammie Day, the then Labour deputy council leader said, "'This is the news we've been waiting for. I am delighted that ministers are now finally answered our calls. Go faster,' he said. Since then, Cammie Day has changed their tune in that period of time. Just last month, Cammie Day came out unilaterally and called for a delay to the application date for another six months. He was shot down by his Labour council colleagues. Every single Labour colleague had a go at him in that particular guard. It's really important. He also came out as much as February, where every party said they regretted the delay from February to October. Edinburgh Councillors support licensing. Why doesn't Edinburgh Labour parliamentarians hear in this place? They don't talk to them. Obviously, they don't talk to each other in that of the guard. I'll take your intervention. Miles Beattie. I thank the minister for taking this intervention. He talks about colleagues. His own SMP colleague, Tommy Shepherd, has said that this is not about home sharing where people let out a room in their home for the festival. There is still some work to be done there. Well, I'm sorry, but this is exactly what this legislation is about. It's that group of people being captured. I think the minister, when he was on committee, understood that. Now he's a minister. He hasn't done anything to change that. Why not? And what is this work that his colleagues say needs to be done? Minister. Thank you, Mr Briggs. You also remember that you were a part of that committee at the same time. I had previously spoken to the festivals before I became a minister on that issue, and I understand those issues and will continue to speak to him on that regard. However, you also remember at that particular committee, Mr Briggs. You also voted for the motion that went forward into committee. You voted for that motion, so you had an opportunity then. Minister, we need to speak through the chair because otherwise you're referring to me and I had nothing to do with it. Mr Briggs voted for the motion that was brought forward by the committee at that particular time. He had a chance to raise issues at that time and vote against what was discussed at that particular time. I want to touch and move on. Scotland's game is open to applications and has been since October last year. There are no caps, no cliff edge and there have been no licence officials to date. By submitting an application, hosts are not only demonstrating their commitment to quality and safety but also to being responsible members of their local communities for visitors to their own beautiful country. Knowing that their accommodation is licensed means that they completely trust their booking and others better in the cap to Scotland's quality tourism officer. Of course, Scotland is not alone in considering this issue. The regulation of short term lets us become the focus of policy makers worldwide. Scotland doesn't stand alone in this. Other countries have sought to place entire bans and entire bans on residents to rent out their home or whether the use of a residential property has changed to commercial enterprise to require hosts to pay huge amounts of compensation. Scotland's scheme aims to strike a bans granting powers to councils to make decisions that are appropriate to local areas. The recent court ruling in Edinburgh raises questions about the legality of some of the aspects of the regulations. Can the SNP Government guarantee that the regulations are legally robust and won't be struck down further in the courts? Thank you. I have just addressed the point that the member made. One of the key things when the scheme was first brought forward was that we were getting the balance in terms of whether it is controlled by fully Scottish Government or given that powers to local authorities. The powers were given to local authorities at that time. That is the feedback that we got from local authorities at that particular time. They asked for that. That is a matter for Edinburgh Council. They got the judgment and have changed their figures, their ruling around that. That continued to be some of the discussions. However, that was feedback from the 20-day consultation that we had previously on that, that the councils wanted that particular power. I want to come back in terms of the scheme striking a balance, granting powers to councils to make decisions that are appropriate to local areas but with core mandatory safety conditions. That is what they asked for. Our Government firmly believes in balancing the impact of the growth of short-term net sectors, which grew threefold in three years from 2016 to 2019 with promoting thriving communities. In fact, the role of the scheme in terms of housing itself is often misreported. Let me put on record all this scheme does not captivate. There is an important interaction with our statutory planning system, which needs to be fully understood as part of this debate, which is one that the motion that is drafted glossies over. Put simply, I said that I was only going to take the three, so let me continue please. Put simply, if someone chooses to change their residential property from being used as a home from living in to being used entirely to host visitors, this may well be a material change of use. It has always been the case that material changes of use require planning permission. A pause to the licence scheme will not change the long-standing requirement. As Minister for Housing, I am committed to increasing availability of affordable housing, but if we are losing homes under the radar, the efforts that this Government makes and which taxpayers fund to build more affordable housing will always be hampered. I want to talk about our willingness to change and what we have done in that period of time since this was brought forward in the 2018 programme for government. It has been 20 months since legislation has passed to give effect to the scheme. People know that. Local authorities' schemes have been open to applications since October 2022, and there was a six-month extension to the application deadline for existing hosts. Since starting the post in March, I have met the SSSC, STA, residents groups, community groups, SOLAR and, as recently as yesterday, I met booking platforms to discuss their perspectives. They were very constructive in discussions, and one of the key messages that came in through was encouraging, asking their members to sign up to the scheme. We agreed to meet very soon, so there is always that willingness to change and that willingness to discuss what a scheme goes on. As various points in process, we have made various changes in response to feedback. We reduced liability insurance requirements, removed over-reparation powers, amended conditions to facilitate home sharing and created means of facilitating temporary exemptions to allow councils to provide for Scotland's flagship festivals and events. We also listened last year and granted a six-month extension for existing hosts to apply for the scheme. I therefore thank the Conservative Party's calls for a detailed evidence-based review out of touch where things are. Someone in the chamber may have missed the last five years' development of the legislation, so let me remind them. Three separate public consultations detailed independent research, six impact assessments, including a 100-page business regulatory impact assessment, a stakeholder working group that met through development of legislation and an industry-advised group chaired by Visit Scotland, which is convened regularly and continues to meet. What we are open to is continuing to improve implementation of me committed to updating this early in the next year. That was always the case. Murdo Fraser asked us to pause the introduction of the scheme, a scheme that has been open since October 2022, a scheme that 7,763 applications have been received and growing and 4,708 applications have been issued. As long—this is a really important point—as long as existing hosts submit a licence application by 1 October, there is nothing to fear. Let me say to operators out there, loud and clear, that your local authority will work with you to be able to process the application. In conclusion, I strongly reject the opposition's claim that the scheme could be paused to wait for a further review. Our Government has taken more than sufficient time to develop an approach to an issue that has been raised by all parties, and we have prioritised the short-term lets sector's voice in its development. The scheme has been in place since 2022 and presents fair regulations. We have listened to the concerns of the sector. We are making sure that content—as long as applications are in by 1 October—are allowed to continue. Local authorities have 12 months to come back to that. We are actively engaging in next steps to plan sensible updates to the scheme and we will continue to work with the sector and partners to progress this. I now call on Mark Griffin to speak to and to move amendment 1041.2. Mark Griffin is remotely up to seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Though I have not operated in the short-term lets sector, I draw members' attention to my register of interests, which shows that I ceased to be the owner of a private rental property this summer. The licensing regime for short-term lets is, in its current form, completely unnecessary for large parts of the country. Scottish Labour voted against the regulations when they came to Parliament in 2021 and we still think that they need to be reformed now. We support a delay to the scheme and for a detailed review of the impact of the licensing regulation and then for changes to be made. With a housing bill finally coming in this parliamentary year, we think that that will provide the right vehicle for changes to be made. The regulations were badly drafted. I think that we have got a technical hitch with Mr Griffin's. I propose that we give it another minute and see if we can... I propose that we still give it another minute and see if we get Mr Griffin back. I think that what we will do is that we will go now to Willie Rennie and we will come back to Mr Griffin. Mr Rennie, you have up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We will support the Conservative motion. We support a delay in the licensing scheme because the burden is too high for many. The signs are that this could lead to a major hole in our tourism offer, threatening jobs and our offer to visitors. However, we have to admit that there is a problem with the growth of short-term lets. We should not deny that just in a second. In some areas, they are severe, but the problems are different in different parts of the country. I will take an intervention. I thank Mr Rennie for taking an intervention and asking this question in good faith. The Liberal Democrat group in the City of Edinburgh Council has been one of the supporters of applying these regulations to the greatest extent here in the capital city. I just wondered what dialogue there had been between Liberal Democrat parliamentarians and their city councillors here in Edinburgh. There has been dialogue because we recognise that there are different issues in different parts of the country, which is what I am going to come on to. In my part of Scotland in the East Nuka ffife, short-term lets and, importantly, second homes, which has been absent from this debate so far, are at such a level in some villages that there just isn't sufficient homes for locals. Those communities won't be sustainable for much longer without a substantial full-time permanent population. The shops won't stay open, the schools could shut, the business could close, in part because there are not enough workers because they themselves can't find a home to live in. Take the Balcomie housing development in Creil. Apart from the social housing section at the back of the new development, all the other properties, bar a few, are now used as short-term lets and second homes, and that is just within a few short years of the estate being built. Ten miles away in St Andrews, the situation is even more acute with large numbers of very welcome students and staff from the university, but the combination of the two makes it even harder to find a permanent home. The problem of the East Nuka is replicated in the Highlands, except that the distances are even larger and making the severity even sharper. In Edinburgh, where Mr MacPherson has an interest, the party flats with all the antisocial behaviour that comes with that add a different complexion again. That doesn't mean that we should remove large numbers of perfectly good short-term lets from the market because we need them for a thriving tourism industry. A certain number of short-term lets are essential if we want people to visit here and spend their money here. The short-term lets employ cleaners, plumbers, joiners and more. The visitor attractions need the short-term lets and those attractions employ more people, sometimes in parts of the country, with few other employment opportunities. Those workers need short-term lets for their wages, but that is the rub. If there are too many short-term lets in the second homes, those workers won't have anywhere to live. It's all about balance. You wouldn't think that from this debate. It's about making sure that we have both as sustainable. Short-term lets can be a good thing, but too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. My concern is that we don't have balance. The licensing scheme is too heavy handed. It's nationwide and has been a victim of mission creep. The reach has now caught yurts, house swaps, rooms in people's homes and bed and breakfast. Imposing controls on those properties won't tackle the problem of insufficient housing for locals nor will it bring an end to the party flats. All those different problems won't be solved with a simplistic national measure like a licensing scheme. The licensing scheme is one-size-fits-all with a requirement on every council to live with the strictest of arrangements even though they have no local need for them. The legislative opportunity here has been squandered by the Government, and that's why it's so frustrating. I'll take an intervention from the minister. Thank you, Mr Rennie. I think that there are a few points for that. In terms of the average cost for Fife, it's around £250 to £450 over a three-year period. You're talking about a five per week in terms of that. Five pounds a week could be added into that. In terms of the feedback that we've had from Solar, including Fife, they're saying that they're there to work with the sector very much to work with applicants. The feedback directly from them and other local authorities is that they've found the process much easier than they've been told. We've kind of lost this. It goes back to the original discussions in the previous Parliament talking about this. Is this where local authorities asked for these powers to do this? It wasn't a national scheme, it was a national scheme, but having local authorities having the powers to do what they need to do in terms of their own local areas, that's what the previous Parliament voted for, and that's what we're enacting and what we're doing today. Willie Rennie. I don't know who the minister is speaking to because that's not the feedback that I am receiving. Willie Rennie says that local authorities have the flexibility. They don't have flexibility to take out B&Bs, they don't have flexibility to take out the yurps or the house swaps or any of the other measures that we've talked about. There is no flexibility. It's a national standardised programme that this Government has imposed on local authorities, so it is wrong to say that local authorities have the power to do something different because they simply don't. Contrast that, and this is where I'll give the Government credit, contrast that with the flexibility offered by control areas, which is sensible. If councils don't want to use the powers or only wish to apply them in a small part of their council area, they've got exactly the power to do just that. We support the use of the control areas to cap the numbers of short-term lets where numbers are already too high. I favour action to control the numbers because I'm opposed to heavy-handed national control measures. Those are necessary, but it's important to have something that's appropriate for every council area. We did a package of measures that includes second homes, and I'm far from convinced that the measures that the Government has proposed so far in terms of council tax will provide sufficient deterrent for the second homes. In parts of the east of Fife, the number of second homes is far greater than the number of short-term lets, so we need to have a rounded policy. Returning to the central point of today's motion, the licensing scheme is too heavy-handed, and I would urge and plead with the Government. Somebody who agrees with many of the arguments that the ministers have put forward today, I agree with them on those measures. I just plead with them. I have a real fear about what he's going to do to the tourism industry. If he gets the balance wrong, we will have an economic hit that will damage our country. I think that the minister knows exactly what is going to happen. I would urge him, even at this late stage, to pause, to reflect and to come up with something that is much more sensible that empowers local councils to make the right decisions for their communities. I do ask members a slight forbearance. I wasn't anticipating speaking at this point in debate, but, given the technical difficulties, I will rise to move the amendment in Mark Griffin's name. Already, in this debate, I think that we have got to the nub of the issue. There is a great number of euphemisms that we have used. The broad brushstroke that this legislation has brought rather than nuance, the sledgehammer to crack the nut, but I think that it is probably best put like this. We had an issue that we needed to tackle in terms of Airbnb's. What we did not need to do was tackle B&B's, but that is precisely what those measures do. I think that it is also really important to deal with the nuance here. Already in the debate, we have had the deliberate confusion between the numbers and concentrations that we absolutely need to tackle and the standards issue that has tackled by the licensing. Let us be clear. This debate, this motion, is talking about licensing, not the planning applications. Licensing is incapable of tackling the number and certainly not explicitly. If the Government's intention is to tackle the number through licensing, it needs to be much more explicit about that. Unfortunately, what it has done is attempting to tackle this issue obliquely and, as a result, is doing so clumsily. Critically, we need to recognise that this licensing approach that is tackling every part of the country when we have specific issues in specific parts of this country. Quite simply, I believe that the Scottish Government is washing its hands of the consequences and impact of this, because we did not need to bear down on B&B. It is already a highly regulated part of the sector, having to comply with a great number of regulations. We had no need to tackle house swaps. We had no need to tackle people letting individual rooms in their houses. If Paul MacLennan was to ask the City of Edinburgh Council about the issues, it absolutely required the ability to tackle the number, but if he talked about the issues that it has, it is exactly the issues that I have just raised. It has no ability to flex around those key points, because the City of Edinburgh Council recognises the need to have room letting and house swaps as part of our offer. The absolutely needed ability to achieve a balance through this legislation, but that essentially is a broad brush stroke and does not allow it to achieve that balance that is so badly needed in the city, which depends on the tourist industry. I am happy to take that question. I thank Daniel Johnson for taking intervention. I am glad that he is in agreement that, because of certain circumstances, home letting and home sharing were right to include in the regulations. Does he agree with me that continued engagement between the Scottish Government and the City of Edinburgh Council has made certain choices in the application of those regulations? Continued constructive engagement is required in order to make sure that the six-week exemption that is available works and works practically. I would agree with that. There are also other areas that the city could look at just in terms of the way that the pricing structure works in the application process. Indeed, I have encouraged Cammie Day and others in the council to meet with representatives from the sector to go through those sorts of issues, but I think that is absolutely what we need to do. Overall, I would say that there is a real issue with the way that the Government has approached this. You cannot treat all businesses as though they are large multinational corporations, because there is a very real human impact and consequence to this. I held a meeting with many members of the sector just in the last few weeks, and it was harrowing. There were tears shed. People who have invested their life savings, whose pensions are the businesses that they run, and that is the reality. I think that all too often, not just in terms of this debate, but as someone coming from a small business background, we treat all businesses the same. Small businesses are people. Regardless of whether or not we think that there should be more or less, we need to recognise that there are individuals standing behind many of those businesses, and that it has very real consequences. That was going to be a difficult decision. That was going to have difficult consequences for many people. Ultimately, part of what we were saying is that we needed less of a particular kind of business. Ultimately, the Government here has created a cliff edge. It has not done the work that it needed to do. I do not think that it provided the guidance that local authorities needed. We would not see the problems in the application process, the kind of complexities being raised in terms of confusion whether or not floor plans were needed, the vast range in terms of fees applied. If the Government had had clear guidance, we would not have that level of variation in confusion. Likewise, if they had done their job properly and communicated effectively, we would not have beaten-beat owners unaware that they have to apply for a licence in order to continue running the business. I am very concerned that there are businesses in this city who, after October 1, will be operating illegally simply because they do not know. I think that the Government really needs to think quite long and hard on that. Ultimately, the Government has said that it wants to have a reset. I am in my very last minute. It is a relationship with business. I would say to it that reset with business goes far beyond simply having more coffees or cocktails and canapes with big business. It is about having a different relationship, engagement with small business, understanding that small businesses are people. Frankly, there are behaviour in this regard and this policy area shows that they simply have not learned that lesson. That reset has yet to begin for many small businesses up and down this country. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Johnson. We now move to the open part of the debate. I call Rachel Hamilton to be followed by Kevin Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thinking about the role of short-term lets in my constituency in the Scottish borders, it is clear to me that today's debate could so easily have been a celebration of the contribution of this industry that it makes to our rural economy. For a rural area like the border, the Scottish Government's short-term let licensing scheme is a square peg for a round hole. It is misguided, it is questionably illegal, it is anti-business, it is a Government whee that is trying to fix and solve issues that they have created over 16 years of mismanagement. My colleagues will no doubt have more to say on the devastating impact of these plans in our cities and other parts of Scotland, but I am clear from the conversations that I have had with my constituents that those plans simply cannot be allowed to progress. Thank you for giving way and she did make the comment that this is anti-business, and I would like to probe that with her for a second or two. As a business minister I go around the country and one of the messages that I consistently get from businesses is that they cannot find accommodation for key workers, particularly in our cities but also in particular rural areas of the country. Therefore, is it not perhaps helping business if we address the housing situation in our cities and rural Scotland so that our businesses can be more productive and get their staff? I thought Richard Lochhead understood business. I was actually quite respectful of his knowledge of business experience but this is just showing that he has absolutely no idea of the consequences. Forming an increasingly important part of tourism sector, short-term lets directly support almost 10,000 jobs across the country, hundreds of which can be found in the borders, but the real impact of self-catering businesses goes much further than that. Providing a base for people to stay and explore our towns, our villages and our remote rural areas brings benefit to local businesses, to butchers, to bakers, to artists, to coffee shops on our challenged high streets. It can also place tourists right on the doorstep of the border's biggest attractions or Scotland's biggest attractions, whether they are walking in the Yildons, fishing in the Tweedaw or exploring the beautiful Abbeys. The economic contribution of people visiting Scotland and staying in short-term lets is set to surpass £1 billion per year within the next decade and that is £1 billion of opportunity for local businesses and the people whose jobs they support. When I am visiting these businesses in the borders that operate short-term lets, I am always struck by how conscious they are about supporting their local economy. On a recent visit to Benken cottages near Jebre, which is an agri-tourism enterprise, I welcome Caroline Miller to the gallery today, which has allowed local farmers to put their businesses on a more sustainable footing. I could see first-hand how businesses were able to work together to create local jobs, local people and boost their local economy, and they were so proud about that. Behind all those fantastic businesses are fantastic people. In most cases, 70 per cent, in fact, are women. I want to take this opportunity and time to talk about their role in this. I was recently contacted by Ms MacDonald, a constituent who operates a short-term lets business in the borders. She described the Government's licensing policy proposals as badly drafted postcode lottery. She goes on to say that regulations vary wildly from council to council, often with very little logic, as to why one council would have one role in place and another not. She has warned. Yes, if you can tell me what's happening within the rules. I would just be interested in Rachael Hamilton's thoughts. Many occasions, Conservative MSPs have argued that local authorities should have more discretion on certain matters. Is Rachael Hamilton arguing in this instance that the Government should prescribe to a greater extent what local authorities can and cannot do? Ben Macpherson's point is flawed, because local authorities have the option to bring forward legislation if they want it when it comes to a short-term let control zone. However, in this situation, every local authority is adopting different approaches, which is totally confusing. It adds to bureaucracy, adds to the red tape, adds to the expense. I'll give you an example. No, because I need to make progress, but I'll give you an example. A local constituent is investing in three short-term let properties because he lives in a rural area. One of the conditions of the planning is that he cannot, until he gets his licence, bring in any income, and that's going to take nine months. What does that look like for local employment? What does that look like for his bank interest loan? I just think you need to reflect very carefully about what you are doing to the local economy, what your Government, I'm sorry, is doing to the local economy. Ms MacDonald went on to say that she's heard of many home sharers and B&B operators around the borders that they no longer wish to continue to operate after 1 October, and her mother-in-law is one of them. Another woman falling foul to this Government's inability to support women in business. Another borderer has been in touch with me, Avril, who runs a fantastic countryside retreat near Melrose. She's expressed identical concerns about the needless red tape, the cost of the plans that are affecting operators in the borders, and warning that it will lead to substantial job losses and the decline of businesses that rely on tourism. She's clear that the Government must pause this legislation. Just to conclude, Presiding Officer, we know this Government don't know how to listen to businesses. They know that they cannot engage with coastal communities. We've had the equivalent of the potential high-link clearances of HPAs. Thank you, Presiding Officer. All I would say is to make policy work. You have to listen to people. To create legislation, you have to engage with industry. Let's pause, let's reset, let's review. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. I now call Kevin Stewart to be followed by Brian Whittle. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. May I first and foremost say that I recognise how important the tourist industry is to Scotland? Equally, I also recognise that Scotland is home, called home by people and communities, and that many have been adversely impacted by the enormous growth in short-term letting over the last decade. That's not just in the cities, it's not just party flats, as Mr Fraser described them, but I remember Christine Grahame on an occasion talking about a difficulty there was with a let in her area. I don't know if that was in the Midlothian south part of our constituency or the borders part, but I'm sure we'll hear that. That's not just a city difficulty and some of the difficulties that there are in different areas, and that's why we have taken the action that we did. It is deeply disappointing that extreme language and misinformation around short-term letting and licensing has been encouraged by public figures, Tory and Labour, and that a great amount of flip-flopping has gone on over the issue in recent times. Let me make a wee bit of progress and I'll take you in, Mr Kerr. As a former housing minister, I engage with stakeholder bodies, community groups and many, many MSPs on this issue. My successors have done likewise, and the Government has spent a large amount of time listening to the various viewpoints and has done everything to strike the right balance. I'm going to be interested to hear the speeches of some colleagues today and to see how their views have changed over the peace, as I think many who were vociferous for change have now changed their minds for political expediency. I'll take Mr Kerr. I'm very grateful that the members are absolutely right to talk about the need for accurate information. Given the need to be sure of the impact of the scheme on the ground, does the member know how many people and businesses will be required to apply for a licence in his Aberdeen constituency? I don't have that figures to hand, but all of that work was done at the beginning, as part of the brias. It was always the case when legislation was brought forward. I should also say that, as well as politicians changing their minds, others also seem to have changed their minds. As the former minister, some people in the sector told me that they were not in favour of a licensing scheme, but instead wanted a registration scheme. Now, some of the same folk are saying that they want a licensing scheme, just not this one. I've heard folks say that we want something similar to the proposed Welsh scheme. I've news for them that the Welsh scheme is largely based on the Scottish model, and it has developed it in the 22 months since the Scottish Parliament passed its licensing regulations. If your analysis is correct, why is there such a huge outcry from the hospitality and tourist sector that is telling you that this is wrong? Right across the period of time that this has taken place, there have been many folks who have wanted no regulation whatsoever. I go back to my previous comment, many folk wanted a registration scheme. That would not have resolved some of the difficulties that we face. I am concentrating on licensing today. I am not going to cover the planning aspects of that, but to any great degree. However, we have taken the right decisions, bringing the licensing and planning together and to allow local authorities to make their own choices. The Government also allowed a six-month extension at the request of operators, but now it seems that others in this place and some industry stakeholders want even more time. That is another case of kicking the ball into the long grass. Over this time period, people and communities across this country who have been impacted by badly run short-term lets continue to feel that they are not being listened to and that they are being ignored. There is scant or no mention of them in the Conservative motion and the Labour and Liberal Democrat amendments that are before us today. I am sure that some of the same Opposition MSPs who were urging the Scottish Government to take urgent action way back to alleviate the difficulties that their constituents and their communities were facing will stand up today and support further delay in ignoring those folks that they cited previously were in deep distress. I will take Mr Johnson. Briefly, Daniel Johnson. As someone who argued for control, many of us find ourselves having difficulties supporting something that takes in home swaps and individual room letting, and it is that scope that is the problem for many people. Would you not accept that that is a valid issue today? I will come to that point in my speech. I will do so as quickly as I possibly can. We recognise that there are different solutions required in different areas of the country, and that is why we have given the flexibility that we have to local government. Let me turn to safety, because that is the part of the licensing scheme that applies to all. It puts Scotland's tourism sector on a level, high-quality playing field. Guests in the Scottish tourist destinations have the confidence and assurance that their accommodation is safe and meets a high standard, whether they are staying in a hotel, a traditional bed and breakfast or a short-term light. The fit and proper person test is designed to protect neighbours, guests and other people from harm and crime and to assist in law enforcement. Finally, ensuring that a property meets the mandatory conditions, such as the repairing standard and far safety requirements, is only right. Who can argue against that? Thank you, Mr Stewart. I now call Brian Whittle to be followed by Ben Macpherson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I welcome the opportunity to speak in this short-term let's debate and to bring the significant concerns to the chamber from across the tourism industry and the rural economy. If only this was an isolated SMP, green policy, having such a devastating impact on our tourism industry and rural economy. Rural policies and tourism policies developed far too often by urban MSPs with no understanding nor interest in the practical application and outcomes of their policies. It is obvious from watching Patrick Harvie's performance in local government committee yesterday that he has just a fundamental dislike for private landlords, and he cares not a jot about the fallout to the industry for the people and the businesses across Scotland as long as he gets to punish the private rental sector. This STL legislation comes on top of the Scottish Government's temporary rent control policy and cap on rent rises. I say temporarily, advisedly, as it was brought in during Covid restrictions, but once in place, Patrick Harvie has led the Greens and the SMP to keep it in place. The problem is, Deputy Presiding Officer, as we know, the Greens and increasingly the SMP do not engage with reality, let alone businesses resulting in legislation that has caused huge rent rises, chronic shortages of rental properties, especially for university students, a rise in homelessness and children in temporary accommodation and a delay in building affordable homes for rent, exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do. Whether it is a seaside bed and breakfast owner in North Berwick or a farmer renting out holiday cottages east in Ayrshire, they will now have to consider if the added complications and costs associated with the scheme are worth the effort. The ability to grant temporary exemptions for major events is at least a recognition that those events should be supported, but from the discussions that I have had with those behind major sporting events, the current approach is bringing little comfort. Take the open championship as a prime example. This major golf tournament regularly brings tens of millions of pounds to the local economy. Next year, it is due to be in Trun, bringing tens and thousands of visitors to the area. Short-term lets are crucial to their being enough affordable accommodation in the area. Now, while South Ayrshire Council has stated that it will grant temporary licences for the period of the event, the added cost and regulatory burden on homeowners for something that might only do once every decade may well make it not worth the effort. That means fewer properties available for those who want to stay and higher prices for remaining accommodation. For events like the open scheme risks making Scotland the home of golf, a less attractive prospect to host its greatest championship. For events like the Edinburgh festival and the fringe so uniquely tied to the city, it threatens their continued existence. I agree with the member that making the temporary exemptions practical and workable is a really important consideration. Does he agree with me that we should all be concerned about the very high levels and charges that some properties go to market with at these events, whether it is co-op or major sporting events? Is it not a collective challenge for all of us? The other option is that we do not have any accommodation at all. That is the problem with the legislation that is going to do, but we will have much less properties available, so the actual cost of the accommodation will go up. There is simply no way that the Scottish Government can stand there and say that this scheme is the best and the right one and it is ready to go. As Paul McClellan said in his opening statement there, he wrote to the MSPs in one paragraph, encouraging us to sign up to the scheme and the next paragraph telling us that he was planning further changes. If a meal is ready, you generally do not need to change the recipe after it is served. The Scottish Government's approach to policy is increasingly driven by the so-called sunk cost fallacy, which is being unwilling to abandon a course of action because it has heavily invested in it long after it has become clear that changing costs would be far more beneficial. What the Scottish Government should be doing is working with the sector to develop workable regulation, but the scheme that the Scottish Government is attempting to drive through risks driving countless numbers of small operators out of business, damage the tourism sector and penalise the many for the actions of the few. Scottish Government needs to change course, pause the scheme and work with providers to create a system that properly recognises the diversity and range of short-term lets across Scotland. If they choose not to, then they will have no one but themselves to blame for sinking Scotland's tourism sector. Ben Macpherson, to be followed by Sarah Boyack. It is excellent that we have this time to discuss this complex and important issue. From the outset, I want to make clear that, as an Edinburgh MSP, I have seen and heard first-hand for a long time the impact that significant growth in the short-term let market can have on local communities. Similarly, I recognise the valuable contribution that tourism makes to my constituency, our capital city and Scotland's economy more widely. That is why, in recent weeks and over years, I have met a variety of stakeholders representing different perspectives, from living rent on the one hand to short-term let operators and owners on the other. However, most of all I have listened to my constituents. I appreciate that there are highly respectable, very effective managers and owners of short-term lets and they do produce employment in local economies. However, even before I was first elected in 2016, I was hearing consistently from many people in Leith in particular about how a very large amount of poorly managed short-term lets in their tenements and their streets were causing them disruption, discomfort and dilapidation of common property. Plus, I have heard concerns about how the increasing flow of properties moving out of the market in terms of being able to be purchased by, for example, first-time buyers and from the private rented sector into the short-term let market being repurposed as whole property, otherwise known as secondary short-term lets. I have heard from many who feel that it has been unjust that private rented sector landlords and other visitor accommodation providers, such as local hotels, have until recently been held to a higher standard than those short-term letting properties that are not their primary residence in particular. We remember, except within his argument, that if someone is renting out a room in their house, why should they be affected by those regulations? They are still living in that property and they are still helping somebody else out in that way. I will come to the temporary exemption shortly, but home letting and home sharing is right to be included because there are some very successful businesses who have several rooms in their house that they rent out but they still live in it and it is right that those rooms are held to the same standard of regulation and safety as other accommodation providers. In previous years, constituents of mine and others with concerns felt that they were not being adequately considered by authorities and that little could be done to hold short-term let operators to account. That is why I pressed the Scottish Government to take action to regulate short-term lets for a long time. I did so with Councillor Kate Campbell, Councillor Adam McVeigh, Tommy Shepherd MP, Deirdre Buckingham MP and others such as Andy Wightman MSP for example and even some who are sitting on the benches that are going to oppose the scheme today. It has always been clear to me that the regulation of the short-term let sector is required to ensure that properties are safe and responsibly managed. It has been long overdue and it is becoming the norm internationally because we should be mindful that places have already taken steps to regulate the short-term let sector in light of the same issues that we are discussing today, whether that is Copenhagen, Paris, Barcelona and most recently New York. Those are just a few examples. We are an outlier here in Scotland or have been until recently, so arguably we are playing catch-ups. It was almost six years later from raising concerns on behalf of my constituents that this Parliament voted quite some time ago now in January 2022 to introduce regulations that are proportionate and necessary to create the licensing scheme, which facilitates national standards and also provides some local flexibility for councils. The regulations create the licensing scheme to ensure safety, to set appropriate quality standards and to hold hosts accountable in line with other providers of tourist accommodation and more in line with the private rented sector. Together with the short-term let planning control areas where adopted, such as here in Edinburgh, the Scottish Government's actions will help to ease the housing crisis, which is particularly acute here in Edinburgh, as I have argued on several occasions and will continue to do so. It is right that the Scottish Government is proactive in the policies that it has adopted to tackle the housing crisis, and that is part of the balance. My constituency is one of the most acute places where that housing crisis is being felt, whether it is people not being able to find affordable homes in their local community or close to their family or their place of work or their children's school. My constituency also happens to be home to a large share of Edinburgh's holiday accommodation. Although I recognise that tackling the affordable housing crisis requires a multi-pronged approach, people are right to argue that, going forward, local aspirations are that the licensing scheme and the control area will mean that more of our stock is lived in all year round. That is the right thing to do. The member is in his last 30 seconds. I want to conclude by saying that I am sympathetic to concerns raised by the culture sector in Edinburgh about accommodation capacity during the summer festival season. The spike in demand that we see is why I have engaged constructively with the Government and the council about making sure that the power to grant temporary exemptions for up to six weeks is able to be utilised in a reasonably simple, straightforward and inexpensive way. I look forward to seeing continued engagement on that. That is an important issue in terms of the wider considerations in our country about overtourism. Short-term lets have been part of that community concern. The Government is right to take action and to continue to consider how we get the balance right. First, I want to declare my register of interests with my former employment at the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. Since I came back to the Parliament, I have been engaged in that issue in very great detail. I was on the committee that looked at the principle of that issue and I was also involved in looking at the detail. For me, Edinburgh has a long-standing housing crisis, which has been getting worse. Not enough homes, the lowest percentage of social housing in Scotland and increasingly more expensive private rented and buying homes, much more expensive than the rest of Scotland and a huge lack of affordable accommodation for students as well as 20 per cent of our population. At the same time, we have a successful growing city where tourism and culture are a key part of our identity and our economy. However, the challenge there is partly that lack of new housing being built to meet demand. A massive shortage during the summer when the festivals are on, but there is also a key issue because we have lost so many properties to short-term lets. The estimate in the 2019 research that was published said that around 13,500 homes had been lost to short-term lets, which is totally unregulated. Although we had had planning policies in the city since 2011, that planning guidance had not worked, which is why we urgently needed the powers of the new short-term let control area with the planning capacity for our council to have the powers. You can see the impact that unregulated and uncontrolled short-term lets have had, particularly in the city centre, where communities are being hollowed out. You can see residents who have suffered from the expansion of party flats and the pressures that that brought to many of our tenements in particular because they did not know who those flats were owned by. When the Scottish Government agreed to act on enabling authorities who wanted to address local challenges, I welcomed that because having a combination approach where we tackle our housing shortage, where we regulated and had used planning powers in short-term lets and enabled local communities to rent out their flats during the summer when they were on holiday or when they were still in the flats, I thought that that was a win-win. However, the problem was, and it has been said by several colleagues today, that the SNP proposals that came in front of us did not strike the right balance. First of all, they did not listen to the argument about the difference between on-the-balance absolutely. There has to be a balance. I want to ask Sarah Boyack's view on the statement that was announced by the Coburn Association, by Place, by Newtown and Broughton Community Council, by Living Rent and Edinburgh Old Town Association. Communities supported the view that new short-term let regulations—I do not know what your responses are in terms of response to that, but what are your responses to the points that they make? Absolutely. They are desperate to get action in short-term lets. The key issue is the loss of 13,500 properties. That is what the short-term control area is critical for and the planning powers. The other side is the fact that, if the minister would take the courtesy of listening to me, he has long established Ben breakfast operators who have been in the city for decades and are not part of the loss of housing. We are also going to be regulated and had to be licensed. I do not see the point of that. It is not an eye there or. There is an issue about the balance of the regulations that the previous minister had. No, I have brought along my contributions of the previous minister on many occasions before. They were not listened to. We have a problem in the unregulated short-term lets need to be acted upon, but we have also got the problem that it has reached out far more than people wanted. The fact that the SNP decided to roll out the requirement to register across the entire country was completely against the arguments that we were making in key communities, in which we wanted our councils to have the powers to act in places such as Edinburgh and the Highlands, in which the impact of airbnbs and short-term lets has had a major impact on our housing shortages. As I would say to the minister who is interested in workers, the fact that we have now got people in Edinburgh having to leave the city because there are no longer homes for them to live in. We have seen the impact of that misguided approach. We need a different approach. Our housing crisis has not been addressed and the council is putting the process of trying to make progress with its short-term lets control area across the city but without the flexibility that was part of the ambition for that legislation in the first place. That was a point that Ben Macpherson rightly made about people sharing their accommodation during the summer when they are still there or renting it out when they are on holiday for a couple of weeks during the festival. Fundamentally, we need both investment in new housing and effective short-term let controls and appropriate legislation to make sure that we are not over-legislating, which is what you have with traditional bed and breakfast now. That is leading to more expensive housing, whether to rent or buy, and its increasing homeless rates. We have a major problem. It needs to be addressed. All of my constituents are being let down. I have had something like 70 or 80 emails in the past few days against removing the powers in terms of tackling short-term lets. That is not what we are arguing today. We are arguing about the points of impact on tourism because of the way that the regulations are being implemented, nationally mandated, implemented locally regardless of whether it is needed or without the flexibility that different local authorities clearly want. The minister said that he would make changes. I would like to hear in his closing remarks what those would be. We know that, after 1 October, if the minister's plans go ahead, people who are not registered under the current regulations will be fined £2,500. That has been clear, but there is a conflict between a licensing scheme that includes traditional bed and breakfast and the pressure that is on councils that want to get going on their short-term let control areas to tackle the short-term let problem. We have responsible owners who rent out all their part of their property and help their neighbours with repairs and maintenance and waste management. However, not all of them do and that is the target that we need. We need to act now that we are in the worst of all worlds, more centralisation bureaucracy and not the action to tackle the housing crisis that is getting worse from our constituents. I now call Jamie Greene. Minister, we do not make sedentary remarks. We are on our feet or we do not make remarks. I call Jamie Greene to be followed by Christine Greene. Can I first make the glaring observation about how empty the middle benches are today? Doesn't that just sum up the fingers-in-the-ear approach that so many MSPs are taking to the really important issue that we are debating today? Much, of course, has already been said. Members who know me will know that I am not in the habit of opposing for opposing's sake, so I want to make two valid points today, because my inbox, like many others in this chamber, has been absolutely flooded over the last couple of weeks about this issue. The first point I want to make is this. I understand the need to properly regulate the property rental market. Anybody with a flat in Edinburgh will not be immune to the very many issues that have risen with the rapid expansion of holidaylets, something that Mr McPherson eloquently alluded to. I understand the challenges that that has brought. I think that we all do. The effect on the wider housing market and stock, the horror stories of dodgy HMOs, unscrupulous landlords, stag parties making life absolute hell for their neighbours—we understand all of that. Neither are we blind to the wider housing problems that Scotland faces, problems that this Government, interestingly, could have fixed a long time ago. The affordable home shortage, for example, rising rental costs driven by a huge mismatch of supply and demand. The question that we have been asked to answer, though, is that if this nationwide short-term licensing scheme will fix any of that. I actually believe that the majority of small guest house owners, B&Bs, holidaylets, cottage industry farmers, short-term rental owners, I think that they get it too. They understand perfectly well the need for regulation, where it is appropriate, and none of the correspondence that I have had disputes that. That is my second point. The overwhelming feedback from our tourism sector is that this one-size-fits-all approach is as wrong as it is unfair. What is a problem in Edinburgh is not necessarily a problem on Cumbria, because the way to solve a housing shortage is not simply to restrict holidaylets. The way to solve problematic Airbnb rentals is not to hammer people trying to rent out their spare room. It is better to enforce anti-social behaviour using powers that already exist. Overall, the message that we are getting that we cannot ignore is that the solution to urban problems cannot and should not come at the expense of rural or island communities. I have got a lot to get through. If industry estimates are accurate, and if the figure is true, and I do not know the figure, but if up to 80 per cent of current operators have not applied for new licence, surely the Government must be scratching its head and asking itself why not, because we are. My inbox, like everybody else, tells us the truth and the reality. These new rules are overly cumbersome, they might be expensive to some, and even in the case of finding local tradespeople to prove compliance, it is proving unachievable and impossible in some areas. Worse than that, we are already being told that we are seeing businesses turn one against another. Those who have applied for a licence are taking umbridge with those who have not. We have all had the same email about some extreme cases of that. They are rightly questioning us why existing measures that govern the health and safety of property are not good enough. It begs the question why the Government waited 16 years to do something about it if it had any concerns up until now. It begs the question why short-term control areas are not good enough to deal with localised issues. I do not know what will happen next after 1 October, but, if it is true, if holiday houses are sold off to private buyers, if many will lie there sitting empty on our island communities instead of drawing in much-needed visitors, if some small businesses decide just to shut up, shop and give in and close down, if students are struggling to get rental rooms because property owners do not want to go through the hassle of getting a licence simply to rent out a spare room to help pay the bills, we have no idea if pet sitting or house sitting or house swapping will all too be caught up in all of this. There are far too many questions and I'm afraid far too many answers from the front bench yet we're just two weeks away from the deadline, the so-called cliff edge. Regulation, in my view, of any sector should be there to help that industry, not to harm it, but it's too often as the case in here. We make laws as a knee-jerk reaction because we're not enforcing existing regulations rather than a lack of effective new legislation. Much has been said about this reset with business, the way to reset with business is to listen to them. Don't listen to us, don't listen to anybody in this room, listen to people in the gallery, listen to real business owners, listen to Helena, who owns Ashley Farm Cottages on the Isle of Arn, who said, please pause, reflect and review, get round the table and negotiate with our industry. I say to Helena, I will vote to save your industry today, let's see how your own MSP votes, notably absent, I should add, because they will have you to answer to. Thank you and I call Christine Graham to be followed by Sue Webber. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First, I very much welcome licensing of Airbnb's. In my neck of the woods there are many, no doubt, some excellent, but one in particular drove me to distraction as every summer a midweek night like clockwork as night fell the temporary inhabitants who set up the drinks table, barbeque and later a gazebo in their garden. I had prayed for rain to drive them indoors and a gazebo. As the night and drinking progressed, so did the noise levels. Finally, one very late night, indeed early morning, had enough, opened the bedroom window and proclaimed that I was a neurosurgeon needing my sleep and they should all go to bed. Silence fell, then there were whispers and peace rained, the gazebo abandoned. So better legislation than neighbours having to resort to subterfuges. I would add that this is not only an urban problem having issues with a so-called party house in West Linton referenced earlier. I also broadly support and appreciate the health and safety requirements however I was surprised at the reach of the legislation and have some case studies which illustrate some issues constituents have raised. I put these in the records and it may be that in summing up some of these can be addressed by the minister. Now I do apprise at Midlothian and Scottish Vardas Council of issued policy guidance introducing some limited flexibility such as temporary exemptions, for example, to accommodate a large influx of visitors over a short period to support specific events such as local festivals and sports events such as the Melrose 7s. Those do require to go before fire on the Eskin police but there is also the opportunity for temporary licences, for example when the property concerned is subject to sale. Those are being referred to as light touch but to constituents' concerns. Those are in quotes and are bridged and their constituents' words are not mine but I think it is part of my job to bring them to the chamber. Quotes, I thought I would get in touch with you to explain why the short term licensing is terrible and in desperate need of adjusting to allow flexibility. I am going through a very expensive divorce and I am desperately trying to sell both my family home and my one bed flat in Edinburgh. My flat lies empty because I cannot rent it out. There is a holiday leg that I have done without complaint for 15 years. Would I do this when it is on the market? Would I apply for a licence? I have already referred to the fact that you can get temporary positions from Vardas Council and Midlothian. I do not know if that is the case in Edinburgh. Case 2, I have operated our family flat in Cosway Sider as a short-term license. In 2006, our children no longer needed accommodation for the university years. There are some party flats in Edinburgh, which should be easy to identify because of the number of guests and the number of rooms. Could this be a straightforward solution? I have applied for a certificate of lawfulness and I am in the process of applying for a licence to enable me to continue with my work. That has all taken many hours and it is like this cost me my entire profit for this year. I just have to hope that it is worth it. I am writing to you as a host of self-catering cabins based in Peebles. I hope that that will assist in the calls to the Scottish Government to pause the implementation of the short-term legislation deadline. The application process is cumbersome, bureaucratic, expensive and unnecessary with time quickly running out as the 1st of October deadline approaches closed quotes number four quotes. We have a purpose-built one-bed conversion specifically designed for short-term lets and not suitable for long-term occupancy because of lack of storage. We market through country cottages which insist on all the safety checks of the current legislation without the additional costs and hoops in the new registration. Finally, number four, homeswapping quotes. We have been members of home link for approximately four years during which we have undertaken 10 home exchanges. That involves staying in each other's home in order to have a holiday, usually on a simultaneous basis, occasionally non-simultaneous. The exchanges are undertaken on a trust basis between partners. No money changes its hands nor is it any payment in kind made. Those are not commercial arrangements but part of the circular or sharing economy. On average, we probably do three exchanges a year and some people do two exchanges. We must emphasise that those exchanges happen in our private home without charge, our home complies with all safety standards that are required by legislation and as it is where we permanently live and maintain it to high standard closed quotes. Those are for constituents. I put them out there for consideration. I share the concerns of Willie Rennie and I do not know whether he is happy or share his concerns. However, there is insufficient flexibility in the regulations that tightly define which properties fall within the remit. I think that we all agree that we need regulations, but they actually go through the list defined in the regulations. There is no flexibility to councils. They are very tight and I do not think that they are always suitable to local communities. I know that councils have their areas, whatever their political hue, at heart. I therefore trust that the Scottish Government will, as this regulatory framework is applied, if what we are saying comes to pass, undertake a review and allow councils more flexibility in which properties are affected. Please do not heckle me. I am trying to be non-political and reasonable, which is unusual for you, Mr Ross. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have the chance to speak in this debate this afternoon. It is, after all, extremely important. Five minutes is not enough time to do justice to everyone who has contacted me to raise their concerns about this legislation. Many of the stories that I have heard resonate and are reflective of some that I have just heard from my colleague across the chamber, Christine Grahame. I will speak to a few, but I would like to thank everyone who has contacted me and to reassure you that I have been listening to what you have been saying. As my colleague Murdo Fraser said, the tourist sector is vitally important for Scotland, yet the Scottish National Party Government is refusing to extend the 1 October deadline for the licensing scheme on short-term lets, damaging one of Scotland's leading industries at a time when they are absolutely flummoxed and struggling already. Like every politically-driven SNP green wheeze, the new licensing regime is not designed to encourage business or promote tourism. Last week, I joined the self-catering Scotland gathering that was outside Parliament and spoke to lots of self-catering operators, many of whom are from the area in the Lothians that I represent and one in particular man who was from Edinburgh originally, who was disheartened that he is now being branded a parasite. How do you think that that makes me feel, he said to me? How would that make you feel if that is how you were branded? He has never had any complaints of any of his short-term lets or his self-catering businesses. I have received countless emails and phone calls from concerned constituents and have even paper copies of stuff that is coming through now. That is how disheartened and dejected the industry is feeling. Elderly gentlemen contacted me to say that when his wife's parents died, they left him the two-bedroom flat in Edinburgh's old town, which they use for short-term lets. His wife has unfortunately developed dementia and Alzheimer's and has a very little income, so the income that they do make from the rentals goes towards her very expensive care home fees. He has said that, being advised that he would not be granted a licence in Edinburgh under the STL legislation, therefore the support for his disabled wife will end. Yes, I will. Personally mentioned, actually applied in terms of that, but you're saying that they're not going to be granted permission. Can I ask if they've not applied how that's been arrived at, and I'm asking for more detail on that? It's a very complex position in Edinburgh and no one I've heard from, they're all tearing their hair out with the complexity and the non-refundable nature of the entire process, and I am not going to take another intervention on this topic. This is a family whose wife is now in a very, very challenging personal situation. Social care in Edinburgh is bad enough, frankly, and I've also been contacted by the manager of McNeill Trust, a charity in Edinburgh that provides self-catering accommodation free of charge for members of the Christian science community. She's concerned about how the legislation in its current form is affecting charities such as the one that she manages, and I gather she might be in the chamber today of an email that she's subsequently sent me through this afternoon. She said, we're not against regulation, as are we, but we are not against health and safety, but we need fair and just legislation, and I am urgently calling on the Scottish Government for a pause in the implementation of the licensing legislation due to come into force on 1 October so that fair and just regulation—fair and just is a common theme—can be achieved by sitting down with stakeholders and getting it right. This is a clear example of how this one-size-fits-all policy is clearly unfit for purpose. I've also been contacted by a constituent called Julian, who has given me permission to quote directly from his letter. Firstly, he said, I am writing as an ex-SNP member. I resigned my membership last month in disgust at the way the STL legislation has been handled and the absolute lack of interest that I have received from my local MSP Angus Robertson when I tried to raise the issue with him. The current version of the STL legislation is a madness that has to be stopped. I've also been contacted by Alison Burns, who for 30 years has been exchanging her home with visitors from across the globe, all without incident. The inclusion of this demonstrates an extreme lack of understanding of this community. She tells me, no money exchanges hands. We've already heard of the East Lothian constituent on that social media channel that I was also asked to join. I was absolutely astounded for her to be told to go off and get a job and then go off and claim benefits, but we've heard the minister's response to that. In conclusion, it's not in anyone's interest to shield rogue operators. The sector believes that strong licensing is important, but it must be fair and practical, not deliberately onious. Predictably, the SNP Green Government has no desire to work with business to achieve reasonable outcomes. Tourists increasingly value self-catering accommodation as well as traditional B&Bs, so I begin today by recognising the vital role that they both have in our tourist economy. I recognise, too, the calls from these sectors to make sure that the licensing regime is implemented in a way that is fair. It is worth noting that the sector is certainly not anti-regulation and, judging by the previous comments on this matter at least, neither were a number of parties in the chamber when that particular legislation was legislated on. Others have scrutinised from various positions and very effectively the detail of the legislation today, but I want to point to the context that lies around this legislation and to one question that often goes unasked or at least unheard in the debate around it, because the people affected often lack of voice. That question is where are people in some of our rural and island communities going to live? If we are to address that question honestly, we will need to have some kind of a picture through licensing and other measures of the number of properties that are currently changing from full-time dwellings into short-term lets. Like Willie Rennie, I could make a similar point about second homes, although I appreciate that that is not within the scope of the legislation. Edinburgh, as we have heard from Mr McPherson, has well publicised challenges around short-term lets, but, of course, those problems are faced in rural areas too. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that some communities are in the midst of a housing crisis. There has been a very welcome investment by the Scottish Government in new social housing over the past few years in my own Hebridean constituency, yet I continue to receive very regular correspondence from younger people and families who struggle to find a house. In many places, people are simply being priced out of their own communities, and I cannot help but to note that those are the same areas where there has been a massive proliferation of short-term lets. My constituency has one of the highest per capita rates of lets on Airbnb in the country. The number of registered self-catering properties is now well over twice what it was a decade ago. I do not think that it is a coincidence that, as the number of short-term lets has grown in that period, the number of privately rented properties in the Western Isles has dropped by a third. Organisations such as the West Harass Trust have raised concerns about the viability of fragile communities, with the balances increasingly swinging towards both second homes and short-term lets. Short-term lets should not be thought of as the only factor in that issue, but nor can they be excluded from the debate about it. Harass and other communities like it clearly and desperately need homes for people who live and work there full-time. A public meeting that I attended recently in Harass successfully made a plea for more social housing in the island, but that is only one part of the answer. Any hope that we have in staving off a demographic crisis in communities like this lies in attracting people to live and work there. That cannot happen if people cannot find any house to rent or if they are continually and massively outgunned in the housing market by people of means who already have a house to live in. I will. Finlay Carson. I very much appreciate the Dallas Rall and Tate intervention. Would you not also agree that part of the balance is that we need sustainable economic growth in those areas to ensure that there are jobs, and some of those jobs depend on tourism, so we actually need tourists coming, so we need to get the balance right. There is an emphasis on providing new social housing, not necessarily reducing the number of tourists that come to the islands or rural areas. I do not want to reduce the number of tourists coming to the island. I absolutely appreciate the point that the member is making about the importance of tourism, but the companies who write to me in my constituency are tourism-related companies who cannot get any workforce in their businesses because there is nowhere for people to live. That is why we have to pay some attention to the need for homes for people to live in this debate. People have rightly pointed out the importance of tourism. I absolutely accept it, not least in a place like the one that I live in, but in areas where housing is being taken out of the domestic stock at a faster rate than it could ever conceivably be replaced, some perspective is needed. How do the undoubted benefits of a short-term let property compare, say, with the benefits, the social good, to use Murdo Fraser's phrase, brought by a family living in that house 365 days a year and contributing to that community? How do they compare with the benefits brought by a local school having enough pupils to stay open, or a community having a sufficient population of working age to provide carers for the elderly, or enough people for a lifeboat crew, or enough staff for new businesses? My understanding is that my own local authority is currently processing over 180 applications around the licensing scheme, with another 65 pending, determination and 236 granted. They are taking an average of 36 days to determine applications and estimate that there are another 100 hosts who are yet to apply. I have not heard of any who have been rejected. I think that it is right that local authorities get to decide how the scheme is implemented so that it meets local needs. Local authorities need to get the operation of the scheme right, I accept. Because the tourism industry is key to the economy of rural Scotland, we have to get it right. The wider point that we should not lose sight of today is that many local communities presently feel powerless as they watch their local supply of housing vanish before their eyes. That is why Governments sometimes have to intervene and why the apparent vision of a free-for-all in housing in rural Scotland does not work for many of my constituents. I call Ariane Burgess to be called by Stuart McMillan. I confirm the speaking time for this, because I heard five minutes, but I thought that it was six. Before I contribute to the debate, I also want to apologise for being slightly late arriving in the chamber. I know the benefits that the holiday industry can bring to often fragile rural communities. At the same time, I also see and hear the negative impact of poorly managed high turnover properties on the communities that I represent. That balance has shifted over the past 10 years. The short-term let sector today is different from what it was a decade ago. It is right that the Parliament has chosen to regulate a changing market. A great deal of determined and detailed work went into drafting this legislation. Community groups, housing and amenity organisations have voiced their support for licensing regulations and powers to regulate through the planning system. There was substantial consultation over, as we have already heard numerous times, a lengthy period beginning before my time in this chamber, giving communities, operators and lobbyists the opportunity to put their views forward. I know that colleagues have engaged with stakeholders frequently, and, for example, the go live date for licensing for most providers was delayed by six months in response to concerns raised by local authorities and industry. I recognise a heated debate about short-term lets. I recognise that the Tories have picked a side of that debate, but what I do not accept is that we should set aside those community voices crying out for change. Rural communities have been placed under huge pressure by the rapid expansion of this sector. It is time to restore some balance. The Highlands and Islands need for affordable, accessible and adequate homes continues to be pressing. The current housing crisis has many dimensions, reflecting decisions over many decades under investment in new supply, sale of affordable homes without replacement, empty properties and much else beside. Short-term lets are only one part of the picture, but everyone deserves a safe, affordable and suitable home. Short-term lets are at odds with this in certain places, especially in many of the rural island locations that I represent. Across our rural communities, homes that used to be available to local families now provide accommodation to visitors. Meanwhile, people are pushed on to social housing waiting lists. Short-term lets are just one part of the issue, but that does not mean that they can be discounted as part of the solution. I heard that someone wanted to take an intervention. I have two very quick points on taking aside the member at alluded to. I wonder whether she would call out the very toxic abuse that has been hurled at some of the B&B owners and self-catering owners as part of the debate. Secondly, in many cases, B&B owners have been earning a livelihood that allows them to stem depopulation in some of the most remote and rural parts of Scotland. I thank the member for that intervention. At the beginning, I recognise the important part that short-term lets providers provide. What we are trying to do here is to ensure that across the board Scotland is offering safe accommodation for people who are coming to stay here. Do we need to do more about rural housing supply? Yes. That is why I welcomed the new financial package for community housing trusts last month, and I am looking forward to the rural and island housing action plan soon. Do we need to do more about second homes? Yes. That is why changes to council tax and additional dwelling supplement for second homes are a right step in the right direction. Do we need to do more about housing costs? Yes. That is why the Tory's disastrous debate last year was so damaging to interest rates now being faced by first-time buyers, and why I support the introduction of rent controls. Do we need to do more about bringing empty homes into use? Absolutely, through continuing reform of planning and land reform, all part of the picture, all needed, alongside action on short-term lets, alongside. When I was standing for election, I marched in a campaign group on Sky that seeks to amplify the voices of local young people who described an existential crisis caused by rising house prices, a dearth of sustainable work and an increase in holiday-led properties. They spoke of being priced out of the villages that they grew up in. Presiding Officer, I am going to end with Yamarch Dhaniel's words, not my own, as I think that it is vital that the voices of young people in our rural and island communities are heard in this debate. They said that previously affordable properties are now being sold at thousands of pounds above their asking price, too often to buyers who have no intention of living on or at times even visiting Sky. The effect of the current housing market trend is devastating. When looking out over the villages of Staffin or Waternish, half of the lights are out. Former family homes lie dormant for half the year in anticipation of high-paying travel. Please conclude, Ms Burgess. I look to experiencing Sky in three days. Scrutinising legislation is hugely important. I welcome the debate on all legislation that is proposed by Government or by members of this Parliament. However, being opposed to legislation and consequently misleading the public on the legislation itself is not good for Parliament and does not do the electorate any type of service. Murdo Fraser just left the chamber. Murdo Fraser earlier on in his opening comment spoke about this set of proposals as being centralised. Later on, Rachael Hamilton spoke and indicated that they are not centralised and that there is going to be a post-cord lottery, as councils will have the flexibility. With other colleagues from across the chamber, Willie Rennie, Sarah Boyack and so on, I had differing opinions. Therefore, it cannot be centralised and also has the post-cord lottery that the different sides of this chamber are advocating. For me, one of the sad things about this whole debate has been some of the extreme language that has been used. It certainly has been less than helpful to say the least. Kate Forbes asked a question a moment ago. David Leisk at the weekend was spot on in his article in The Herald. I am not going to do the whole article, but I am just going to do one snippet from that article, Presiding Officer. Do we really need to have to say out loud that having to, for example, check a holiday home for deadly waterborne diseases or apply for a licence or planning permission is not the same as being raped, robbed and murdered because you are Jewish? I am afraid so. He also wrote, do we have to explain that using this kind of language diminishes the experiences and insults, the memory of Jews and others who endured horrendous atrocities? Apparently, we do. The use of the phrase, programme, Parliament was beyond distasteful. I hope that every single MSP in this chamber would condemn this type of terminology when this is used unequivocally because this certainly is not that. I will take— Yes. Brian Whittle. I just want to take the opportunity to assure the member that everybody in this time at the side of the chamber concurs with his opinion on that. Stuart McMillan. I am happy to hear that, Mr Whittle. To come back to the issue of short-term lets, the Conservatives might be surprised to know that I actually want more short-term lets to take place in my Gnomeicon and Berkley constituency, because we actually have a shortage of accommodation, which is a shortage of hotels as well as short-term lets. One of our hotels is currently being used by the UK Government for asylum seekers, and another hotel is being used for the Ukrainians coming in because of the war in Ukraine. To be second, but for this reason, it is positive that the legislation gives Scotland's councils the powers to balance the needs and concerns of their communities with wider economic or tourism interests, and I will take the intervention. Rachael Hamilton. Stuart McMillan, I think that it is misleading to suggest that bringing in this burdensome legislation and licensing scheme is going to solve the Government's housing crisis. Stuart McMillan. I am actually coming on to that, so if I wait for a few moments. Inverclyde is not facing the same challenges as Edinburgh, the Hines and Islands, or Gillian Bute and Andrews III local authorities when it comes to the issue of short-term lets, or, for that matter, some of the housing issues. We need more accommodation to help boost our tourism offer, yet other communities are struggling to cope due to the high volume of tourists, with places like Orkney considering curtailing the number of cruise ships docking on the islands. This can be viewed as a nice problem to have, but the reality is that this localised approach will ensure that it can be tailored to best serve the interests of everyone across the country. I note that the Labour Welsh Government is keen to follow in Scotland's footsteps with regard to short-term lets legislation. However, it is looking at taking a centralised approach. That is something that I was spoken about earlier on, and it is for the reasons of outline to believe that this—well, I have already taken to interventions. I believe that this will be problematic and would be using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut. Inverclyde does not have the same issue as other parts of the country. Labour also continually calls local authorities to have more autonomy, and the legislation that we are talking about today gives them that. I also find it interesting that the Tories are asking for a further extension, when 22 months have gone by since—I have already taken to interventions—a licensing regulation that has been passed by this Parliament, including a six-month extension, at the request of operators. The modest licensing scheme, which is not going to be onerous for the majority of short-term lets operators. Communities across Scotland have for years highlighted the impact that the concentration of unregulated short-term lets has had on local infrastructure and housing availability. Alasdair Allan spoke very eloquently about the situation in his constituency. On the issue of housing, in my constituency, we have got over 500 vacant properties in the registered social sector. The housing minister was in the constituency during the summer time. I organised a meeting with the chief executives of the RSLs. That was the message that the minister was told. The RSLs in my constituency do not want to build any more homes because we have an oversupply. Inverclyde's situation, as I said, is totally different from other parts of the country. One of the reasons I do not want to build any more is because of the huge inflationary costs, thanks to the Tory budget from last year. The minister highlighted the detail of the legislative process involving short-term lets. He highlighted that earlier on in his contribution. It was extensive, including the six-month extension already. I am supportive of the short-term lets licensing scheme, as it helps to ensure that high standards in Scotland's tourism offer provide councils with the tools that need to address localised issues. I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to be followed by Keith Brown. Scottish Labour believes in the regulation of the short-term lets sector. We know that it is key to ensuring the health and safety of guests, to protect against rogue owners that exploit the system, to protect our communities and the people who live in them, and to help people caught up in the current housing crisis. All of us in this chamber know about the impact that short-term lets can have on our communities—good and bad. We have heard a lot of that this afternoon. The destructive stag or hen, the variety of people coming and going, and who maybe do not have the connection needed to ensure that areas are looked after or that neighbourhoods are respected. We also know and have heard about the positive impact that it can have, too. In Glasgow, I know that constituents welcome people from across the world to share their home for big events such as cycling or COP26. Doing that provides diversity, friendship and income for many, and I will return to some of the other benefits shortly. However, the short-term licensing regulations in their current form do not strike this balance, which is why we voted against them when they first came to Parliament, and why we continue to believe that they should be paused and rethought today. To the point that I mentioned to Sarah Boyack, I get on about the community organisations that support the new short-term regulations in terms of what we are talking about in its current form, but we also support what we are bringing forward just now, and I have reiterated that. You cannot even convince your own Labour councillors in Edinburgh to support what I have spoken to them. I thank the minister for that intervention, but he has already had an extensive conversation across the chamber and answers from my colleagues on that matter. With respect, I will move on. As drafted, the current regulations leave short-term let providers feeling anxious and let down, while also failing to help those who are caught up in struggling with the housing crisis. They also fail to recognise or protect some of the benefits of short-term let's, in particular to women and disabled people. Like many other people in here, my inbox is full of emails from constituents asking me to oppose those regulations. Many of them are real people with real livelihoods at stake, because they are worried that we face regulations that act like the whole country is the same when it is not. What works for Glasgow won't necessarily work in the Western Isles. What works for disabled people may not for others, I will. Duncan Glancy for giving way. I say to Ms Duncan Glancy that the regulations are not the same across the country. There is flexibility for local authorities. The only parts of the regulations that are national are those that cover health and safety. Her colleagues agreed that they should be in place in former discussions. Does she not think that it is wise to ensure that all properties that are being let and used for tourist purposes have the basic health and safety requirements met? Duncan Glancy, thank you for that intervention. Different types of properties are all being included. There is not enough flexibility in the regulations that have been presented to recognise both the benefits and the issues that come with short-term let's to our community. That is what we are asking the Government to rethink about, to pause and to make sure that they work for everybody in our communities across Scotland. What works for disabled people, for example, may not work for others, and I will come to that. Colleagues have set out why that matters and why the current regulations are inflexible and fail to strike the balance of need, protection or opportunity. I want to talk briefly about why getting regulations right matters, and to set out the potential impact flawed regulations could have on women and disabled people who, if we do not take the time to listen to them, could be disproportionately disadvantaged. Firstly, the blanket approach does not take account of the benefit, the flexible approach that the short-term let sector can bring for the host or the guest. Being a host can provide a flexible and rewarding source of income. Indeed, we know that 55 per cent of hosts of Airbnb are women, and the association of short-term let's say that that is because it is seen as a flexible and balanced way for women to earn, who has to also manage other responsibilities such as caring and childcare. Regulations that are inflexible to this or clumsy risk being a barrier to such opportunity, so it is crucial that we get that right. Some disabled people are worried about that, too. One disabled woman who lives with two lifelong illnesses was attracted to this way of earning and working because of its flexibility. She believes that the regulations, as they have been put before us today, could mean that she will likely not be granted a licence, and she's devastated about that. That potential impact is now having a detrimental effect on her mental and physical health. Furthermore, the ability to share or swap your home with other disabled people from across the world has long facilitated an accessible route to tourism for disabled people, including houses that you live in. The regulations could be unaffordable and put an end to that. Indeed, the short-term let's sector has some other useful accessibility aspects that a pause in the regulation could facilitate happening, too. For example, some platforms allow a filter that drills right down into accessibility, and it's very helpful and detailed. Updating the regulations could present an opportunity to do that in other parts of the sector. I'm afraid that, once again, we've got a position where people up and down the country are feeling the impact of a policy that may well have good intentions but which has been poorly executed. It happens too much. I've seen it in Glasgow with the LEZ, which also, incidentally, disproportionately impacts women and disabled people. Good intentions are not enough to make policy work. The Government also has to do the hard work of engaging in considering and adapting and changing, including with the people that will impact the most. The Government has again tried to address a problem by implementing a solution that itself will create many more problems. In closing, we believe that there is a need for regulation. I believe that and Scottish Labour supports that, but the current plans are far from the mark. I ask that the Government listen to the concerns that are raised today across the chamber and act to the interests of people across Scotland. Please don't plough ahead, regardless. Listen to the real concern and work with others, including Scottish Labour, to address it, so that those regulations are fit for purpose and that they have their intended effect without the unintended consequences. I, for my part, would agree with the last point that was made by Pam Blanche Duncan about the fact that the Government and others should listen to what is being said today. I found it very useful to listen to the points that have been raised. It has been generally a constructive debate with one or two exceptions. Of course, that debate today and some of the points that were raised add to the information that we have from our mailboxes and, in my case, certainly from hearing from ministers prior to this debate about some of those issues. It is clear that there are genuine concerns—there is no doubt about that—raised by some of those affected, not by everybody. There seems to be a notable absence or posity among a number of people speaking up for guests and those who might have concerns about safety and other issues when they take out a short-term let. Nevertheless, it is important that we hear the concerns wherever they come from. I have been interested to hear some of those points, including from some of my colleagues about some of the concerns that either they or other constituents have. Given those concerns, I want to see for my part whether there is a reasonable lead-in time before this takes effect. There has been 20 months as a lapse since it has been first agreed. I want to see a dialogue having taken place. That dialogue has taken place, we have heard from Kevin Stewart and some of the things that have changed since the initial proposals. That tells me that there has not just been a dialogue but that there has been listening on the part of the Government. It has not achieved all the changes that those who have remaining objections want to see taking into effect, but it has been taking place. I think that that is right that the Government should do that. Of course, the Government also has to go back to the first point to commit to continuing that dialogue, and I am hearing that the Government intends to do that. It is very important that I am listening. Looking at my postbag, I would admit that most of the people who are in touch with me have expressed concerns. They are by and large not from my constituency—the ones that I have. I have heard representation saying that they do not agree with the Government's approach that they think that it should go much further, because of the effect that short-term lets are having in their neighbourhood. However, there are others, whether from organisations or individually, who have expressed concerns. On that, to go back to the debate, I think that he started off relatively reasonably with Willie Rennie's contribution, where he recognised the good elements of the scheme. He also mentioned some concerns, but one thing that he said was about the impact of second homes, and he said words to the effect that he did not have a solution for that to put forward, perhaps because this debate is not about that. However, it is a very difficult case to resolve, a difficult situation to resolve. We have heard it from others as well, and that involves getting competing interests together, as a Government has to do, and trying to adjudicate on a way forward. However, the Government will have to take action, and I think that that is exactly what is happening in this case. It started off relatively positively. From the Labour Party, I have to say that it just seems like opportunism. If you have a council leader saying one week, saying that he wants a break, and then two days later saying that he does not want a break, if you are saying that you want a national scheme—sorry, a decentralized scheme where the Labour Party in Wales is looking for a national scheme—it just seems to me like opportunism. I do not really, from the contributions that I have heard, get what Labour wants to get from this scheme. The Conservatives, I think that we have seen it all before, the kind of blanket condemnation, ruling out its SNP bad, we do not want to listen, we do not want anything to do with it. It is the same stuff that we have seen for many years. Yes, I will give way to Mazz-Riggs. I am grateful for the member taking this intervention. If this policy is working so well, why have 80 per cent of people not applied for this policy? What is the Government going to do about that in the next two weeks? Keith Brown? The deadline has not passed yet. I am not aware of any probable issues with dealing with the—I know why they get criticised. They do not like it when they start shouting. Yes, I will do it. Kevin Stewart? One of the reasons why some folks—a number of folks—have chosen not to apply is because they have been told not to apply by various members in this place and by other organisations, because they said that the Government would follow. Does Mr Brown agree? The terms of the debate have been terrible in the way that the Tories have dealt with it, because, as ever, all it is is about attacking the SNP, and you will hear them now start to shout because they are hearing something that conflicts with their world view. However, to be honest, the constant negativity, the kind of approach that they have taken, we can see that it has got 14 per cent in the opinion polls, so many of you are not going to be here in the next Parliament. It does not work. The least you should be doing is trying to constructively engage, and you do not serve those that you say you want to serve, including those in the gallery, by taking the approach that you have taken, talking about an existential threat to the tourist industry. The tourist industry will still be here, and, of course, it should be reviewed if there is an impact from this on the tourist industry. I know that you are all shouting again, and I know that you do not like it, but I am not giving way. If you take a much more positive approach, but you genuinely try to change something for the better, rather than waiting, continuing criticising, opposing every single thing that the Government opposes, you do not serve the people who have genuine concerns well by doing that. I am reassured that the Government has taken on board the points that have been made to them by both interest groups and individuals, that they have changed the proposals that they have given a long lead in time, including, of course, our six-month hiatus, where further views were taken on board. That sounds to me like the way a responsible Government should act, and it is for that reason that I will support the Government's motion tonight. Thank you. We move to winding up speeches, and I call on Daniel Johnson up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Again, I apologise to colleagues that they are having to listen to me twice in this debate, but there we go. I begin by saying that it is quite a curious approach from Keith Brown to praise the debate for its constructive nature, and then immediately launch into partisan detractions. I think that this is detailed news. I think that there are points of genuine consensus, both about the need that we support our tourism sector, but also the need to think very carefully about housing supply. I do not think that there is a single member that has spoken this afternoon that would disagree with those two fundamental points. The point is about how we strike the balance, and balance and flexibility are two of the words that we have heard time and time again through this debate. Can I begin by praising Ben Macpherson, who made an absolutely excellent speech? I agree with absolutely every one of his points of analysis. This is a city that has an absolute reliance on tourism. We need to nurture that sector. We need short-term lets as part of our mix and accommodation, but we also have to recognise the severe challenges that we have in housing. I, like him, have stairs in my constituency where there is key lock after key lock. It is not scientific, but it is a sign of the scale that this has had. We have seen residential properties moving out of residential use, and we have seen chains of air, B and Bs springing up across the city. That is something that we need to tackle. However, what I would point out, and what I tried to draw out in this debate, is that we should not confuse that ability to control the number with that regime, which is about standards and the quality of the accommodation provided. I would caution ministers, because a number of SNP members have made the assertion that this is about tackling the flow. I think that that was a word that was used by the ministry and the growth of the sector. It has seen transfers out of private residential use. If we are losing the licensing regime to do that, that is what the Government is saying. I think that they need to be quite careful about their legal position, because I am not sure that they can use the licensing regime to do that. Let us just be careful, but let us also be precise. The planning regime is how we control the number. That is what is in place to do that. I think that there are issues with that. I would like a more calibrated and efficient use, and I think that some of the issues that we have seen in the city are because that precision is not in place in the regime that has been brought forward. However, I would also like to praise Willie Rennie, because there is ultimately a point about that balance, that tension, about providing jobs in parts of rural Scotland, so that you need that balance not just as part of broader terms, but to bring people into places. That is tricky. Ultimately, we need to acknowledge the broader fact that this is about housing supply. However, let us be clear. There is no doubt that the move of private residential residences into the short term does not help, but it is not the fundamental problem. The reality of the situation is that housing completions in this country have never recovered from the rates and levels of 2008. If this Government had managed to meet and achieve the average level of completions of 25,000—which is what the last Labour and Liberal Democrat Administration in this place did—we would have 100,000 more houses in Scotland. Absolutely, we need to tackle this issue. However, this is not a substitute, this is not a proxy for housing policy, this does not displace, this is not a substitute for completing housing across every sector. I am very happy to give way to Kevin Stewart. I thank Mr Johnson for giving way, and he is right that this licensing regime will not deal with housing, per se, and housing supply. What it was meant to do was to ensure that there were basic health and safety standards in all of the short term lets and across the sector, driving up quality. That is why, and there is some confusion here today, the flexibility that local authorities have in terms of the licensing regime, some of which have been raised by members, is theirs. However, I am sure that even Mr Johnson would agree that that health and safety aspect should apply across the board, because we do not want people coming to live in unsafe accommodation. I thank Kevin Stewart for that speech. The reality is that we had an issue, but it was not one of standards. Of course we want consistent health and safety standards, but we are taking one problem and applying a solution that deals with another. We need to be very careful about that. I would contest his point about flexibility, because Paul Lawrence, a senior official at Edinburgh Council, wrote to Edinburgh MSPs stating that they did not have the flexibility, that on the critical issues around house swaps, about room lettings, the council had to apply the regulations comprehensively. If that is not true, I would urge the Scottish Government to write to the council, but what I would urge them to do is revise the regulations to remove them. I think that Christine Grahame made an excellent contribution, because my mailbag looks much like hers. There is a very broad range of people who have found themselves in this sector, who have done it honestly, decently. They are not big businesses and they find this confusing and really deeply worrying, potentially incurring huge costs. That is because there is a huge broad range of sectors that are now sucked into this. BNBs, room lettings, glamping pods, yurats, shalys, and types of accommodation that cannot, will never be used for residential accommodation that are being required to obtain these licences. What is more, because of the nature of these regulations? We even have the absurdity about people who may be staying overnight, who are asked to consider a donation or may even do work in return for their overnight stay. Are we in a situation where people who are simply asked to do a small amount or do some chores can find themselves where their hosts have to apply for licence? We simply do not know the answer to that question. I will just continue. This is not a system that has flexibility. It is a solution that is seeking to address a problem that was not the one that we originally set out, and it is a national scheme that we are requiring local authorities to implement regardless of whether they want to or not. I am not quite sure that I have enjoyed the debate. It certainly had some interesting contributions from across the chamber, and that is no reference to the fact that we have had two contributions from Daniel Johnson today. That has only improved the quality of the debate, of course. However, I do think that it is something for the Presiding Officer to reflect on that front bench speeches should only be delivered perhaps by MSPs or in the chamber at the time. It is something that perhaps we could all reflect on as well. I do want to say that, as Minister for Both Tourism and Small Business, I recognise not only the value of the short-term let sector as it is, but the need to plan ahead for a sustainable future and high standards through effective regulation. Having visited a number of self-catering let's over the summer, I very much appreciate the value that short-let accommodation plays in our tourism sector, bed and breakfasts, self-catering accommodation, castles, bunk houses—the list goes on and on and on. Of course, all offer accommodation to visitors so that they can explore our amazing country, and of course all should offer a safe and quality stay. That was a very important point that was made by Ben Macpherson and some other speakers as well. Murdo Fraser. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. As of last month, only, I think, 16 per cent of short-term let's had applied for a licence. What is the level that the minister wants to get back to to deem the licensing scheme a success? Is that every single MSP in this chamber from across all the parties urges publicly short-term let's hosts to apply for the licence before 1 October? Then the local authorities will have their 12 months to discuss and perhaps negotiate with local hosts before the licence is issued. As you have heard, no licences so far have been rejected. That would be the most responsible step to take for all members in this chamber. I will take one more intervention. Douglas Ross. For giving way, he will know in Murray that this is a serious issue. One of our joint constituents came to see him at his Avis surgery and he shared the information that he shared with the minister. This constituent applied for three properties in the Highland Council area, applied for planning permission on 3 October 2022. It should have been determined by December 2022. It is still outstanding. How can we get the figure up from 16 per cent, as Murdo Fraser is saying, when our own constituents cannot get through the process? Of course, local authorities should be doing their best to work with those who apply. I should say that we have gone from 20 per cent from Miles Brigg to 16 per cent of numbers so far from Murdo Fraser. My own constituents to date are 40 per cent. It seems to be doubling every few minutes the number of businesses that are applying for their licences throughout Scotland. Those are very important issues, and that is why there is flexibility with local authorities. That is why we are saying that, by 1 October, we are following another extension that the businesses should apply for the licence. They do not have to have the licence to continue trading legally. I will take one more. Miles Briggs. The minister will recognise his name, Avril Rennie, because he won in Scottish bed and breakfast of the year. He wrote to congratulate her, the accountant female bed and breakfast in Ayrshire. She is saying that it is too complex and costly a system in Ayrshire, and it is likely to then not apply for that. There is a need for a phased approach beyond that 1 October deadline. Does the minister understand that? Are they going to do anything about that or just wait for 1 October and that cliff edge for many businesses and people? I hope that that lady does apply, because she has a fantastic business, and that is why I wrote to her congratulating her. That is also why the housing minister and others have been speaking to local authorities about the bureaucracy. There has been a situation in my constituency that I understand where the online portal has not been ideal, and the local council, the Conservative red council, are improving that. I hope that that will lead to easier applications in the next few weeks. I want to turn to a couple of themes that members have mentioned, because I see that I am running out of time because of my interventions. First of all, those are serious social economic issues that we are speaking about today. I thought that Alasdair Allan made a very powerful point raising that, because many people portray this as an urban issue that is affecting Edinburgh or perhaps other countries such as Paris and New York and so on and so forth, but it is not. It is very much a rural issue, and particularly in Scotland as well. As a minister, often I go around rural communities, as I did again this summer. I speak to young people sometimes or anyone who says that they cannot get a house in this community because they are either second homes or holiday lets. The dilemma that we face as a Government's parliamentarians is that we need holiday lets, and it is not illegal to have a second home. Indeed, in some countries it is the culture to have second homes. I have taken the intervention so far. This is very much a social economic issue, and we should not shy away from it, and we should recognise it as a need for regulation. Jamie Greene said, why did the Scottish Government, if it is such a big issue, not deal with it 16 years ago? When this Government was elected, Airbnb did not exist. Airbnb did not exist. The world is changing. People are using technology and buying properties, understandably. There seems to be a commercial opportunity. They are putting it on to the web. They are using Airbnb and other platforms, because now they can do that. Of course, tourism around the world wants to come to an amazing country and take advantage of that, so it is a booming sector. That has social economic implications, as Alasdair Allan and other members have said. We have to deal with that, and that is what this is about. There will be an early review in early 2024 following the implementation. Remember, we are urging people to apply for the licence before the end of the month, and then the local authorities, as I said before, will have that year to work with the businesses. Let us make sure that the outcome of that is a thriving, self-catering sector and short-term let sector in Scotland, covering all the various forms mentioned in this debate. Let us ensure that we have a thriving tourism sector. We are not the only country dealing with this. We are not the only Parliament in the world dealing with this. New York, Paris, Barcelona, the Welsh are now looking at it as we have heard. The English are looking at it as we have heard. Portugal, France and Spain are all looking at it both in urban and rural areas, because the world is changing and it is having social economic impacts where people sometimes cannot afford to live and work in the communities where they are raised. Our local businesses, including tourism, cannot get key workers because they cannot vent anywhere else to live as well. Of course, because tourism is booming, everyone deserves that accommodation is safe, secure and compliant. Let us work together to make that happen and encourage as many people as possible to apply for the licence before 1 October. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Last week, I, along with MSPs from I think all the opposition parties, met with protesters outside Parliament. It is something that we do on most weeks and welcome constituents to Parliament, but this was something very different because the people I met outside Parliament had never protested in their lives before. These were hard-working, lower-biding Scottish citizens who are running bed and breakfast, guest houses across Scotland, individuals who are renting out a room to tourists or workers and have done so for years. I welcome many of them to the gallery today as well, but they felt compounded to come to Parliament to try to speak to ministers and their MSPs from SNP and Green parties to try to get them to listen. That is what we are trying to do today as well, to listen to the very real concerns on how short-term policy has been implemented by councils across Scotland and the negative impact that this will have on the lives and businesses of so many of our fellow citizens. Last Wednesday, they were ignored by SNP and Green ministers. The honourable exception being Fergus Ewing. I want to pay tribute to Fergus Ewing for his principled stance on this and his campaigning. I am sure that ministers have also faced that, but I wish that they would listen. During the passage of the short-term lets legislation at local government and housing and planning committee, ministers were warned about the unintended consequences of the wide-ranging reach of the policy, especially around this hard date for registration of 1 October. We offered to work with the cabinet secretary, Shona Robison, at the time, to try to find a cross-party consensus and workable approach to legislation, regulations and the guidance, which has now been issued on several occasions to councils across the country. Behind the scenes, I think that the new housing minister was also doing the same. He understood at the time the problems that were quite clearly coming on the horizon. I welcomed the six-month extension to the policy and hoped that ministers would use this summer to understand those problems and issues and bring forward workable suggestions to Parliament before 1 October deadline, especially following the ruling that the City of Edinburgh Council's licensing policy was found to be unlawful under judicial review. Linking planning systems and licensing systems, as Daniel Johnson has mentioned, was always going to be problematic, but ministers do not seem to understand the consequences of that. Ministers were warned that, without significant advertising campaigns, that the busy summer period—individual households and businesses face in Scotland and across any summer tourism period—would not give them the time to complete applications, undertake work, get tradespeople and then provide the necessary documentation. Sue Weber and Christine Grahame made some really important points on this from constituents who are just saying that to each and every one of us. For example, ministers could, if they wanted to, and could today take forward and agree on a new phased introduction beyond 1 October. I hope that something ministers genuinely beyond vote tonight will take away and consider. Giving businesses bed and breakfast and guest houses and those who do home sharing a phased introduction beyond 1 October is important. The Edinburgh festivals, which have not been mentioned by a tourist minister, are the world's largest art festival. It has rightly helped to make Edinburgh the world capital of culture. I welcome that, and I think that every MSP who represents the capital has mentioned that. Those unrivaled cultural programmes deliver a major economic uplift to businesses, jobs and livelihoods across the capital and further a field in our country. Cities around the world, which are growing their art festivals, would give their right arm to become as successful as Edinburgh festivals have been. Indeed, many will be looking at the potential impact on next year's festival and seeing how they can benefit and try to become the world's largest art festival. It is clear that ministers understood the negative impact of the short-term lets legislation on this year's festival when they brought forward the delayed date of 1 October to help the festival get through this year, knowing the consequences. I think that there are a few key ones. The festival, just to tackle that first, I engaged with the festival as we both did prior to becoming a minister and obviously discussed that with them as did the Cabinet Secretary, and I think that that was one of the reasons for the six-month extension. In terms of engagement, I've met with people in terms of both for and against the scheme that we've talked about. What we're talking about here is safety stands. We're talking about average costs of £250 to £250, and we're talking about safety stands. That's what's not being mentioned in the debate about there. In terms of national local campaigns, there's been two local campaigns around by the Scottish Government. If you go into any website now, if there's any local authority, they are pushing and promoting this scheme. I hope that, as has been mentioned before by Mr Lockhead, we encourage everybody to sign up for us before 1 October. Local authorities have 12 months thereafter to determine their application. None have been refused so far. Miles Greggs. I'm not sure the minister is really understanding, though, where this policy sits, because 80 per cent of people have not applied in Edinburgh. If he thinks that this is indicative of a great scheme that is fit for purpose in delivering, he is wrong. These people have decided not to apply for a reason. We're seeing the impact on bed nights being withdrawn already, and the cost of the Edinburgh festival this year is at its highest level ever. In addition, the number of properties listed here in the capital has also dropped to a record low from 8307 to 7993. It is concerning, as I've said, that the Edinburgh City Council is saying that they expect an 80 per cent reduction in short term lets in the city. Local authorities' registers are indicating that across Scotland as well. In Edinburgh, the figure was standing at 97 per cent. That is an unsustainable position, and that this policy is failing not only at housing policy but at the tourism potential that we all want to see grow and improve. However, the fact is that SNP MSPs and MPs do not seem to understand who is being captured in this. As I said earlier, Tommy Shepherd says that this is not about home sharing, but it most definitely is, and they are captured. It is the most basic of economic principles of supply and demand, and fewer rooms available will produce higher costs for anyone wanting to come and spend time in Scotland. As every Speaker has said during the debate, no-one is against regulation, and health and safety should be. I believe that in the vast majority of cases paramount to anyone operating in this sector, they want people to have a safe stay either in their home or in their property that they are letting out. As Murdo Fraser stated, a well-regulated short term lets sector is a social good. It is important not just to tourists but to many other sectors in our society, including commercial travellers, who are going to the Western Isles to work and also here in the capital as well. Today's debate presents Parliament with an opportunity to pause the introduction of the legislation and urgently reassess its impacts not only on the tourism sector but the wider economy and people's lives during the cost of living crisis. This debate is not about inflicting a defeat on the Government, it is about Parliament delivering workable legislation and good governance. Ministers and the two Ministers who have spoken in this debate, I think that acknowledging when they have got something wrong isn't weak, it's strong, and I hope both of them will take away from this debate the need to do something, not just move forward without taking on board the real concerns. The short terms legislation is not going to help solve the housing crisis in Scotland. What this legislation is going to do is drive a crisis in the Scottish tourism sector and that is something that they will be responsible for doing as a Government. SNP ministers should therefore take this opportunity that we have brought today to Parliament to pause the regulations now and take forward meaningful engagement to arrive at a proportionate, fair, legally sound legislative framework that works for everyone in Scotland. I support the motion in murder phrases name. Thank you. That concludes the debate on pausing the short term lets licensing scheme. I understand that you were in the chair, but during the last debate, there was a suggestion by Minister Richard Lochhead that another member should have been in the chamber to participate. I seek your guidance on this because I think that without knowledge of why another member may choose to participate remotely in a hybrid Parliament that all parties signed up to is potentially disrespectful and I'm concerned that such language might become part of our debate. I don't consider calling out other members for how they choose to participate in the Parliament to be a debating point and I'll be interested in your views on the matter. Thank you, Mr Mundell. I'll respond to Mr Mundell's point of order if I may. Just really for clarity to all members, the position is that the rules allow members to participate in the chamber or remotely. Those are the rules of the Parliament. Thank you. Richard Lochhead. For the record, I wasn't referring to the individual or the individual circumstances, only to the front-bench speeches, not to the individuals of circumstances. I would just say again to the minister that Parliament's rules are such that members may participate in the chamber or remotely. We'll move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 10420, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. Thank you, minister. No member has asked to speak on the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 10420 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 10421, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, on timetabling off a bill at stage 1. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request to speak button now, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. I'm once again moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you, minister. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 10421 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Paul MacLennan is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Mark Griffin will fall. The first question is that amendment 10411.3, in the name of Paul MacLennan, which seeks to amend motion 10411, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on pausing the short-term let's licensing scheme, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, it will move to vote, and there will be a short suspension until our members to access digital voting.