Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee

I'll invite the witnesses to introduce themselves for the purposes of the record. If you could say your name and the position that you hold within your organisation, and then we'll go into questions. The session is scheduled for approximately 75 minutes. Each Member will ask you a series of questions and we look forward to receiving your responses to inform our evidence-gathering at this stage. If I could start with you please, Heidi.

Heidi Neil, I'm the public protection manager for Carmarthenshire County Council and hold the portfolio for licensing for the Directors of Public Protection Wales.

Morning. I'm Councillor Huw Thomas. I'm leader of Cardiff Council and I'm the WLGA spokesperson for the visitor economy.

Hi, I'm Bethan Jones, I'm the operational manager for Rent Smart Wales, and I also chair the housing expert panel for DPPW.

Thank you very much. I should have mentioned that the microphones come on automatically, they don't need to be pressed. Do you agree with the general principles of the Bill that's before us?

Yes. There are a couple of reasons. There's clearly synergy with the proposals around the visitor levy full stop, and I think there's a complementarity in having a licence scheme for short-term lets. I think it's also about standards and ensuring that there are high standards provided in the industry. I think it's also about providing some measures of control where performance and standards don't meet our expectation as local authorities, not just in terms of the offer to visitors but also in terms of nuisance issues like noise, anti-social behaviour, waste presentation and whatnot. It's also about levelling the playing field. The barriers to entry for short-term lets are much lower than, say, the traditional hotel sector, so it's about levelling the playing field so that everyone is competing in the same way, I think. Others may have a different view.

I completely agree with that position. I think the benefits of licensing are that it makes regulation of a sector so much easier. What you're able to do is to have a really good relationship with, in this case, the accommodation provider, because they have asked for your involvement, made an application. So, that relationship is so much better from the start, and the outcomes then are more productive.

You don't think that would be achieved by a register? Because we took evidence last week from Scotland that indicated that, in their opinion—and I appreciate it's their opinion—they believe that if you look at the health and safety aspects, a register would quite happily capture all that data that you require from a provider, rather than actually go into a licensing regime and all the bureaucracy and costs that are associated with that.

A register on its own doesn't give you the power to inspect and check standards within the property. A licensing scheme does allow you to do that, and it comes with all the sanctions that a licensing scheme has then as well. I personally feel that the ability to apply standards, check standards, gives you a more robust system moving forward.

Okay, thank you. Heidi, do you have anything to add?

I think at the moment, this is a sector that we don't really know very much about. It's under the radar. Registering our licensing scheme would give us more sight of the sector and who's out there. As Bethan said, the licensing scheme, being able to do licensing conditions, is more robust then.

Thank you. Councillor Thomas.

I take the point that a registration scheme is less onerous, but I think with the licensing scheme comes greater control. I think some of the emerging evidence, particularly from rural Wales, is that short-term lets can have an impact on house prices in an area. So, I think local authorities would then wish to have a greater level of control through a licensing scheme, rather than just simply registering what is out there. I think that's the consideration.

But the Cabinet Secretary is on record as saying this isn't about housing—it's about health and safety and quality of accommodation. You've indicated there, Councillor Thomas, in your response that it is about housing and it's not necessarily—

Well, I think it's all linked, isn't it?

Not according to the Cabinet Secretary.

He knows the legislation better than I do, but it would seem to me from a local authority perspective that being able to have levers of control in terms of the numbers involved in short-term lets is a useful lever for us to have in terms of empowering local communities.

Okay, thank you. What level of consultation or discussion did the Welsh Local Government Association as an organisation—or indeed, if you were sighted on it, individual councils—have with the Welsh Government in relation to the constructing of this legislation coming before us for consideration?

As the expert panel chair, we've been consulted, as everybody else has been consulted, on the consultation paper a couple of years ago. We provided a response as part of the directors of public protection group. So, yes, the housing expert panel contributed to that. As Rent Smart Wales, we have had ongoing discussions with officials about lessons that could be learnt in developing proposals in relation to this particular matter. We've done that face-to-face and virtually over a period of time.

Is there anything else that anyone wants to add to that?

There's been engagement with WLGA policy officers as well from a tourism-related perspective.

The introduction of the Bill, coming as it does at the end of the session—by the session, I mean the Senedd term—obviously has created a pressure point on scrutiny, and discussion and consultation in particular, especially from the sector—the professional bodies that represent the sector. From a WLGA point of view, or indeed individual local authorities, what is your view on the timing of its introduction? Because if you are to play a role in regulating and enforcing this, you want to be able to have the best piece of legislation possible, so that you're not ending up in the bun fights and, ultimately, all the uncertainties and grey areas that maybe detailed scrutiny would've teased out of the legislation and presented a complete piece of legislation to enact.

From my perspective as a local authority leader, whilst, as I said in my opening remarks, we'd be supportive of the legislation, the devil is in the detail, and the concern is around the resources required to make effectual the licensing requirements. I'm not sure there's a full understanding—. I think the Scottish model is useful, but I'm not sure there's a complete understanding of what the burden, in terms of licensing and enforcement required on local authorities, will be, and in particular how the funding of that regime will work, given that you'd be asking different parts of a council to do investigations and/or enforcement. How does that time cost then get recaptured and paid back to the local authorities? So, I think there are points of detail still to work through.

I agree. I think implementation needs to be paced and resourced, but also we need clear guidance for regulators and the sector as well, to have a smooth transition into the new legislation.

I think the model is unclear to me at the moment about how this regime will work, who the central body will be, if there'll be a central body, and then the impact on the local authority as a consequence of that. That all makes a difference to the impact on local authorities. These local authority teams in environmental health and housing services have got other legislation coming their way as well. So, there is a concern about the resourcing and the prioritisation of these different elements of legislation.

Because if you compare this scheme to Rent Smart Wales, for example, Rent Smart Wales is much simpler, in some regards, because the primary interface of Rent Smart Wales, which itself is being run through a local authority—Cardiff—has been into the housing directorates of the local authorities across Wales, whereas in this instance, it's not clear. I think it's a matter that needs to be teased out in further discussion between the Welsh Government and the WLGA: is the best model to have the Welsh Revenue Authority as the licensing authority, or does it sit—? I don't think we want 22 licensing authorities on this, but does it sit with a single local authority or some hybrids? But then, it's that interface. It's not just with housing; it'll be with trading standards, it'll be with waste, potentially, it'll be with environmental health. So, how does that body, wherever it sits, develop that interface with multiple departments of a council, times 22?

In fairness to the Cabinet Secretary, in his evidence he gave us last week, he was convinced of the merits of the licensing being placed with the Welsh Revenue Authority as a single body to do the licensing. He obviously informed us that it is to be determined who will be the enforcement side of the equation. He was persuaded that local authorities, most probably, are the best equipped, but, ultimately, there are other organisations out there—Visit Wales was cited—that could be considered as well there.

I think we would object strongly to that idea.

Right. Because you would see it that you would be best placed to do the—

I think we are best placed, yes, and I think it's about that local control as well. If you do go down the WRA route, the challenge for that authority is how does it build that link effectively with the different departments of those councils and then work through how does the resourcing of those different departments work as well.

Could I just clarify? You object to the Welsh Revenue Authority being the enforcement authority.

No, Visit Wales. You mentioned Visit Wales being the enforcement authority.

That's what the Cabinet Secretary indicated.

I don't think we'd support that as the WLGA.

That's helpful to understand. Thank you. My one final question. We've taken evidence—and you've talked about resources, as is ever thus in local authorities, as indeed any organisation—that there's been an indicative price of £75 per application placed on the licensing regime. In your understanding—and Bethan, you've got a clear understanding on Rent Smart Wales—is that a realistic price to put on what a licence might cost? Because evidence we've taken indicates to the contrary.

Our fees for licensing for individual landlords are just over £250. But that licence fee allows that person to be able to manage several properties. I'm not entirely clear with the proposals whether there will be a licence per property or a licence per applicant, and then properties listed as part of that application. Those are things that need to be considered when a fee is set.

That's helpful to understand. But going back to the principle, would £75 be realistic, as you understand, if it's per application?

If it's per application, per property, I'd say it's on the low side, but it might work.

Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else have a consideration on that?

Licensing is generally on a cost-recovery basis, on what it actually costs to administer the processing of that licence. So, I'm interested to know how that £75 has been arrived at and what has gone into calculating that. But I agree with Bethan, it seems low in comparison to other licence fees across other licence regimes in the local authority currently.

I think artificial intelligence is going to be the silver bullet, we're told. Good luck with that. Luke.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. I'm just thinking about the licensing scheme in particular for a moment. We've touched on the licensing scheme. We've touched on the enforcement side of it. What I'm trying to understand here is how does the WLGA see the role of local authorities in that licensing scheme. What conversations have specifically happened with the Welsh Government about how local authorities would slot in when it comes to that licensing scheme?

I'm not aware that we've had any conversations about our role in the enforcement. To pick up on a comment made earlier, if local authorities are responsible for the enforcement element of this, there are elements of enforcement that can be covered by the licence fee, and there are other elements of enforcement that can't be covered by licence fees. So, that raises a concern in terms of resources. I think we need to have that discussion about the local authority role in this.

So, that discussion has not happened at all around the role of local authorities in the licensing scheme whatsoever.

No.

Not in sufficient detail.

Okay. That's quite concerning at the stage we're at at the moment.

Other than the initial consultation.

Right. Okay. Just thinking about the Bill itself, it looks at self-contained accommodation specifically here. Do you think that's the right place to start, or would you want to see that extended to other forms of visitor accommodation?

Like what?

For example, would you want to see the scheme being extended to some of the other forms of visitor accommodation, rather than just the self-contained element of it?

I think when we talk about resources, a phased approach would be preferred, because we can manage it. And then any extension could be evidence-based on rates of compliance, risk assessments associated with the scheme. I think Rent Smart Wales similarly have had experience of this, haven't you?

Yes, absolutely. A phased approach is the right way to go. And even phasing within that sector. So, for example, if you were able to prioritise properties that are managed through an agent, that might actually have a big impact initially, and allow you to refine your procedures and systems and things before you go wider.

Thinking about some of the evidence that we have already received from the WLGA, the written evidence suggests that it would be wise to consider it reasonable to include a fit-and-proper-person test, or a similar requirement, as part of the scheme conditions for all visitor accommodation providers. Could you just expand on that a bit more for me, please?

Other licensing regimes include this fit-and-proper-person test. I know at the moment the legislation is talking about fitness standards that are in relation to the properties themselves, but there could be concerns about the use of those properties where you’ve got anti-social behaviour, but also high incidence of crime. I know in one local authority, for example, Airbnbs were being used by organised crime groups, and that sort of thing. So, I think it needs consideration.

There are systems in place because of those other licensing regimes like NAFN—the National Anti Fraud Network—for example, where we could share that data of these applicants in order to make that a little bit more streamlined, because we’re suggesting adding, potentially, an additional check here. So, yes, I think it would bring it in line with other licensing schemes when you consider other issues that might be experienced around these sorts of properties.

Okay. Any other views on that point? No. Just one final question—. Sorry, Bethan.

Just to come in there, I think it's worth dwelling on it and taking views. Because, yes, other licensing regimes do have a fitness and propriety standard contained within the process, but the relationship that you have here with the accommodation provider is very different. It's generally short term. The fit-and-proper-person test process is quite time consuming and quite a bureaucratic process involved in licensing. So, it will push up the costs, and it obviously involves lots of other organisations. So, deliberation about why we would have it in place is important, I think.

Thank you for that. Just one final question based around the licensing scheme before I move on to some questions I have around the evidence base. The information sharing provisions within the Bill—do you have a particular view on whether they are proper at the moment?

I think, probably, you’d want to take expert advice from legal and digital experts. But picking up on the F&P dimension, but also in terms of the wider enforcement links to ASB, purely from a citizen perspective in managing the impact of short-term lets on an area, I think you’d want to put in place a fairly streamlined data-sharing system between different parts of the local authority—the licensing authority in this instance, Rent Smart Wales, HMRC as well, I imagine. So, you can see upsides in terms of the flexibility of data sharing, but I couldn’t comment on whether the provisions are sufficiently in place in the Bill to allow that to happen.

I’m wondering how this will all work in practice, and it’s linked to that evidence base that was used in the putting together of this Bill. And the explanatory memorandum talks about the paucity of data in this particular area.

I suppose that leads nicely into a question around whether the WLGA, or even Rent Smart Wales, think that the data that is currently available, the evidence that has been used to formulate this Bill, is robust enough as a starting point. We’ve taken evidence, particularly from our colleagues in Scotland, around the need, perhaps, to get a data and evidence base in place first before we proceed with this Bill. Is that something you would agree with?

I think, for me, the question would be do you need that data first before the Bill, or can you establish the Bill and then move forward through implementation, developing the data. I think—and you can speak on this, Bethan—there’s probably good lessons learned from how Rent Smart Wales was set up, around how you would proceed in the building of that data set.

Data is always useful, isn’t it? The data that we shared as part of the DPPW response, or the WLGA response, indicates that our complaint levels at the moment are quite low in relation to holiday accommodation. But I suspect that’s because we don’t advertise the fact that we are there to respond to complaints. And because it’s quite fragmented at the moment—the different local authority parts that can respond to various issues—it’s not visible to people where they could report to.

I think it’s also not clear what is short-term holiday accommodation, sometimes, as well.

I personally think that there's real value in having a licensing scheme, because it allows that regulation to be so much easier. You're asking for compliance right at the start of something, when somebody is open to changing their behaviours and taking on new standards. And the standards that are included in the Bill as being required will probably change and improve the standards in this accommodation overnight, so I'd say, 'Why wait if you can make that change quickly?'

Finally from me, Chair, 'cumulative impact' seems to be the buzz phrase at the moment, not just within this sector but in other sectors as well—agriculture being one. But in this sector in particular, a number of people have given evidence over the course of this inquiry and the previous inquiry specifically on the visitor levy around the cumulative impact of policies on the tourism sector—so, changes to the business rates, changes to the premiums around second homes, and so on. How do you see this factoring in when it comes to that sector? Do you think that the sector has been overburdened at the moment with different regulations and different requirements, or do you think that this is still striking the right balance?

I would be certainly viewing the visitor levy, for example, as a means of investing in the tourism sector and the tourism offer. To give a Cardiff answer—. I'm here on behalf of the WLGA, but certainly in Cardiff—and with the news today—we are certainly seeing that as creating revenue to invest in growing our visitor economy, which in turn brings greater return into the sector.

In terms of the pressures facing the hospitality industry, I think they are recognised and I think there are other factors, beyond the control of Welsh Government regulation, driving some of those factors in terms of cost. But with this specific measure that the committee is considering today, I see it as, like I said in my opening remarks, (1) a level playing field for the different types of visitor accommodation that are out there and (2) it's about lifting standards, as well. This is another lever that we would have collectively as government in Wales to make sure that the visitor experience, if you're a tourist coming to Wales, is a good one.

Cardiff stands to benefit quite a bit—I think that's accepted.

From the visitor levy?

Yes, from the levy. What I'm trying to get at here is that, obviously, the WLGA's membership is broader than just Cardiff. There's all 22 local authorities within there, all of them with their own different challenges. So, has the WLGA done an impact assessment on the cumulative impact of the policies for the tourism sector at the moment, taken in the round, essentially?

On the visitor levy, I think it's really important to recognise—and this is one of the things we strongly support as the WLGA—the local discretion that's applied, for councils to take it forward or not take it forward. That creates opportunities both ways. It's striking, I think, that beyond Cardiff the councils that are looking to take this forward are in north and west Wales, in more rural authorities, and this comes back to the point I was making earlier about the impact on house pricing that the tourism economy may be having in those areas. But even within a south-east Wales context, you could see opportunities for developers and local authorities. If, for example, Cardiff will proceed with the visitor levy, then if you're in Caerphilly, in some regard you could say, 'There's a competitive advantage that we may have; okay, we're further outside from the city centre, but we haven't got that levy applied.' So, I think that point of local discretion is really important and really welcome. In terms of an assessment of the cumulative impact, I'm not aware that the WLGA has done that piece of work.

Okay, great. Diolch.

Thank you. Just from me, on licensing, the explanatory memorandum talks of a potential 30,000 licences having to be introduced or applied for, and Rent Smart Wales, which seems to underpin a lot of the explanation and rationale about working, deals with about 6,000 in total. Do you see that as an issue over capacity, because obviously you're talking about something five times greater than Rent Smart Wales deals with at the moment, and also a considerable amount more information to be provided as well?

So, just in terms of headline figures for Rent Smart Wales, we've got about 200,000 properties, 100,000 landlords and 50,000 licences. The number of licences held by agents are more like 4,000. I don't know whether that changes your question slightly.

So, you don't believe that there's a capacity issue in dealing with this, then, given that the evidence that we've received from some of the associations that represent operators in this sector have highlighted the difference, obviously, in the number of applications that they understood were to Rent Smart Wales, but you're indicating that you deal with far more.

Yes.

The 6,000 refers to agents, rather than the overall workload that you deal with.

Yes. The thing is, you’re going to have to resource the service.

There's still a capacity issue.

There's a capacity—. Well, I suppose that there are two elements to this. There’s the resourcing of a new service, that the licence fee should be set at the level that allows you to resource that new service and bring in the right number of staff to deal with it—Rent Smart Wales has established around 100 positions in its structure now—and then you’ve got the impact on local authorities. That impact can be seen in several different ways. We need to drill down into those different elements of impact and make sure that each of those is resourced properly. For example, just the publicity around this scheme coming in will result in more demand on existing services within the environmental health teams. So, that needs to be captured somewhere, as an example.

Yes. The point I'm trying to make is that we're being told, and the sector are being told, 'This is going to cost you roughly £75, and there'll be approximately 6,000 applications, there will be, then—sorry, 30,000 applications, sorry—and we can do that on the basis of charging £75 for it', and the evidence coming back to us is that that's not realistic. I think, and I heard you say, Councillor Thomas, that there is a resource issue here, there is, then.

I think that is the fundamental point we would want to make clear. And let us differentiate between the cost of administering a licensing scheme, which may be covered by the £75, although colleagues are suggesting it feels low, but then there is the work demand that’s generated by having that scheme in place on, I guess, in particular, local authorities, if they are the enforcement body. If it’s Visit Wales, it’s a different question, but then they're going to be massively recruiting in order to have the capacity to take on those issues.

You’re also going to have a surge on uptake as well. When we go live, you are going to have all those 30,000 coming on in one go, so there's possibly needing to be investment at the start to set it up, and then there’ll be ongoing investment as it goes on, which you can manage through the year, then. But there’s going to be that surge at the beginning as well to consider.

And just back to you, Bethan, you indicated that you've got about 100 people working in Rent Smart Wales, you have, to deliver the service that you offer at the moment.

Yes. It's a combination of a registration scheme and a licensing scheme, but, yes, that's the number.

And one final point on licensing: do you believe that there should be auto-renewal at the end of the 12-month period? Because, again, evidence that we've taken indicates that there could be a logjam with an annual renewal that will have to go through the process all over again, as opposed to an auto-renewal that would automatically renew the certificate, unless, of course, there were concerns raised against the holder of that certificate or the person had been disqualified. Because, obviously, if you haven't got the certificate, you can't trade, and if there is that logjam, through no fault of the individual, they could suddenly find themselves being in breach of the legislation. So, a recommendation has come through in some of the paperwork that we've received that talks about an auto-renewal system to be put in place.

I don't agree with an auto-renewal. I think, for example, my understanding is that a lot of this would be a desktop exercise, checking gas safety certificates, to make sure that all the various standards are being met. We're taking it for granted—. Those are things that have to be renewed on an annual basis and we're taking it for granted that they're renewing those if we do an auto-renewal, and I think that it negates the purpose of the licensing scheme altogether.

But there are ways of managing renewals. So, all the licensing regimes within local authorities at the moment have renewals, and there are systems in place to make sure that those licences don't lapse prior to their renewal, so, you start the renewal process. So, it may not necessarily need to be an annual process, or a full process on an annual basis. It could just be a submission of your paperwork. So, for example, if I take a taxi licensing regime, if the medical certificate expires during the period of your licence period, you can just send your certificate in and the licence continues. So, an auto-renewal I don't think would work, but there are other mechanisms to make sure that they're compliant, but that their licence doesn't lapse.

Okay, thank you. Any other points, or—? Sam.

Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning, panel. Building on some of the questions from the Chair around enforcement in his opening introductory questions, I'm just wondering, with regards to the WLGA and discussions around this—obviously your preference, Councillor Thomas, would be that local authorities lead on enforcement—can you give us a little bit more of a reason behind that?

I think that is informed by, in the first instance, where does—? It's in the title, right, 'local authority'—that's the authority within a local area that has got the powers and the vested interest, I would say, to be able to take action against complaint issues, anti-social behaviour, noise pollution, or indeed a lack of good service. So, it would feel natural to me, I think, that there is that element of local control. I've talked about the difficulty of how this licensing scheme does touch on different parts of a council's functions, but, nevertheless, the principles of a stepped enforcement approach through education, engagement and then warnings and then fixed-penalty notices—I think that's well understood in different parts within a local council.

I think, if you were going to create a separate, and it would be a new, enforcement body on a Wales-wide basis, the obvious question that I would have, as a council leader, or indeed as a local elected representative—and I am sure the same would go for colleagues around the table—is, well, how do I exert some control over what that national body is doing, dealing with the problem that my residents are telling me exists around the corner? Whereas, if it's the council, the local council, taking that action, there's a more direct channel of accountability, I would suggest.

Okay, and on that point then, and coming back to the previous point around the cost—the £75 cost that has been talked about as a cost-recovery mechanism—there would be a cost in administering enforcement as well. So, would that cost bear out in that £75, or would you be expecting an additional cost, additional resources coming through funding to be able to administer the enforcement as well? Is that £75 only looking at a small part of the scheme and not the wider element, where enforcement needs to be included as well?

Yes, I think that's the point, right—that £75 may deal with licensing, but it doesn't deal with some of the enforcement costs. There's a parallel here to a degree with Rent Smart Wales. So, for example, where there are referrals relating to damp issues raised through RSW, that's referred to local housing enforcement. There's no compensation, if you like, to that team for carrying out, in effect, an existing statutory duty, but, nevertheless, it's a cost to the authority. So, I think it's really important, in consideration of these proposals, that it's worked through in fine detail between Welsh Government, the Welsh Revenue Authority, local authorities, what the likely cost and burden of a new enforcement regime is likely to be. And I think, together, there will be different flavours in different parts of Wales. I think the WLGA can play a key role in determining that.

Anybody else want to add any points on that?

Just to say, I think what is important is the conversation, so that we can work out actually what the best model would be, having the customer in mind and what the customer journey is going to be. At this moment in time, we just don't feel as if we've had that opportunity to have the conversation and work that out, really.

Okay, and just to build on Councillor Thomas's point there, I know in the EM it sets out that local authority housing and environmental health services will be reimbursed on a, quote,

'cost-recovery basis for any activities they undertake'—

quote—

'in relation to visitor accommodation suspected or confirmed as being non-compliant with licensing requirements.'

So, in terms of perspective from the WLGA, is that sufficient, or is it the case that there's still a lot to be thrashed out in how this will actually look in practice, where principle is over here, but, in terms of the delivery of this service in year x, there's a lot of work to be done between the meantimes?

I guess; I was going to say 'sufficient' in principle. The devil's in the detail. And I guess if there is—. You know, Bethan's comments—we're not dealing with a number of issues in this sector currently, but that may change as awareness raises. So, you know, is the approach just to pay for enforcement work that takes place, undertaken by existing teams, or is the conversation rather, 'Well, here is the expected uptake in work. Let's recruit teams across Wales with some upfront funding from Government so that they are ready and active and able to respond quickly', when, you know, there's probably a flurry of initial issues and then that would tail off?

Okay. And then a final point from me. Something that's been raised, and I've raised with the Cabinet Secretary as well, is how booking platforms could be held responsible for failure to show the correct licensing number. And they're saying, 'Well, if we're provided with the wrong licensing number, how are we indeed able to check?' Just on a broad perspective, do you think that's sufficient? Do you think that's fair, a compromise in how the booking platforms need to take a certain level of responsibility and correct advertising, but also there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that they can correctly check that the information that they've been provided is correct and accurate from the property owner, the property management team?

I think that could be easily solved: there could be a register of licensees. So, if it's the WRA who are issuing the licences, they would host a list, so the platforms could check it. I think platforms should be checking it and should be advertising it. Again, it instils consumer confidence in the sector as well. And it's easily resolved, I think, through something as simple as a public register.

Okay, thank you, Heidi. That's really helpful. Thank you, Chair.

Jenny.

Just before I go on to the standards of accommodation, I wonder if I can just pursue the issue of the efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities in doing the enforcement duties they have. Because, for example, Cardiff, the Vale of Glamorgan and Bridgend have one enforcement agency, but, if there's another local authority out there who's just doing it on their own, I don't think visitors should be expected to pay for other people's inefficiency. So, what's the role of the WLGA in ensuring that the services that are needed to enforce this are being done effectively?

There are a couple of elements to unpack there. In terms of what's the role of the WLGA, I think that's at arm's length in terms of performance management, and I'd probably talk about peer review process and how WLGA supports all councils to improve standards as the answer to that kind of efficiency question. But, in terms of the efficiency itself, I think the issue is about—. The examples I'm thinking of is where a licensed Airbnb is non-compliant with some of the safety measures within the licensing scheme, or where there are repeated examples of anti-social behaviour or mispresentation of waste arising from that property. So, I'm not sure it's the visitor who's necessarily being penalised for inefficiency in that.

Except that, in the last session we had, when we heard from the Scottish tourism representatives, we heard that Edinburgh—the equivalent of Cardiff—is charging £800 and a bit more for these visitor licences, because they're saying that's the cost-recovery basis. Now, I think there's a role for the Scottish Government in all that, but the point I'm trying to get at is: how do we ensure that the visitor isn't being asked to pay for something that is just being done badly, and that whoever the enforcers are have to be mindful that we want visitors to continue to come to Wales?

So, you're talking about the cost being passed on to the guests.

Yes, I am. They're saying it's a cost-recovery basis.

If you're going to have a central licensing authority, then you're not going to have different licence fees across the 22 authorities. It's going to be a single licence fee, irrespective, isn't it?

Well, that's what the tourism representatives were arguing. They said they wanted a national body.

Which I know isn't how it works in Scotland. Otherwise, I don't know how you would get around it, because you've got some authorities that will have a lot more, therefore they will need more staff, therefore their costs are that much higher. You've got more rural regions where perhaps they're more spread out, so where they need to do visits, there's more travel. I think, given the nature of Wales as a country, you're going to have those variations. So, the way around that in terms of the licensing fees is to—. Which is what we're asking the—

True, more holiday lets equals more levies being passed on to the enforcement authority.

The cost recovery is on the licence fee at the moment. So, as I say, if it's going to be a central licensing body, you can set a central fee then that's equal across the country.

But why couldn't we have an enforcement system similar to Rent Smart Wales, which happens to be based in Cardiff, but you don't travel up to north Wales, you ask the relevant local authority to do whatever enforcement is required, do you not? And you reimburse them for that.

This comes back to how it's important that we do have the conversation to work out how the whole model would work. So, in Rent Smart Wales, we have a memorandum of understanding with every local authority. They also have all of the enforcement powers that Rent Smart Wales has, and they can choose whether they want to do the enforcement to ensure compliance or not.

And if they choose not to, who then does the enforcing?

Rent Smart Wales does the enforcement, and Rent Smart Wales probably does 98 per cent of the enforcement. But that's not to say that there's not an impact on the local authority and that they don't support us in delivering the service, because they do. So, there is a resource impact for them, but they decide not to do most of the enforcement. Where they will do the enforcement is where there's an overlap between what they're currently doing as a day-to-day job and the offences that might be arising as a result of Rent Smart Wales legislation. There are nuances to what enforcement is that need to be delved into to work out, 'Well, okay, then, is that an element that should be going to the local authority or not?' That's why the conversation is important.

Okay, thank you for that. It sounds like this nuance needs further investigation.

There are two issues here. One is: do we want to be able to do the enforcement? Yes, because it sorts out some of the issues. Is there a resourcing cost to that? Yes, as well. So, on the question of efficiency, it's not how well the job is done, it's how quickly the job can be done in terms of managing the impact on the local community. And I guess if there is a more robust cost-recovery regime, or even an upfront funding regime, that will allow local councils or whoever does the work to be quicker and more efficient in enforcing.

Moving on, what are the statutory obligations that local authorities have at the moment?

In this sector, there's health and safety legislation, some of it dealt with by the local authority, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and some of it would be by the Health and Safety Executive. I think the problem—for want of a better word—is that it's piecemeal, because there are other elements also, which would be the fire and rescue authority, for example, and there's also trading standards legislation if you get complaints about standards, and our evidence suggests that we don't get a lot of them, but there would be trading standards legislation that could be enforced. If there's anti-social behaviour and nuisance, we've got the public health teams that would enforce noise nuisance. So, it's all a little bit piecemeal at the moment.

Okay. Obviously, there are other things around enforcement: a property that's not fit for human habitation, you know, the damp problems, the electricity certificate that is either not there or simply doesn't reflect what the reality of the danger is.

Yes. If the accommodation was in this space though, in the holiday-let space, then the housing enforcement teams wouldn't be involved with that at all at the moment.

Okay. So, the enforcement officers that local authorities have, it's noise, health and safety, and then, obviously, fire risk.

Yes. The fire risk will sit with the fire and rescue authority rather than the local authority, but, yes. In terms of standards, because the housing standards don't apply, we would be reactive too, and it would be more of a consumer complaint, unless there was an outright lie. So, if, for example, a provider advertised that they had a gas safety certificate, an electrical safety certificate, and those were fraudulent, there could be a criminal element to it from a trading standards perspective. But we're really trying to make it fit then, rather than it being a robust piece of legislation for the sector.

Well, certainly when I've raised issues with Rent Smart Wales in relation to my constituency in Cardiff, the enforcement teams, in some cases, do get involved, because it does require a physical visit to see just how bad the situation is.

That would generally be in relation to a privately let property—

Oh, yes, a private let.

—rather than in this space.

No, no, it wouldn't be, if it was social housing; it would be private rented. But this is what we're talking about here. All these people are going to be privately—

But that's in reference to long-term lets, isn't it, and what we're talking about here are short-term lets—

No, I understand that. I'm just asking what are the enforcement powers you have at the moment. There seems to be a certain amount of crossover, but we need to clarify that outside this meeting, I think.

So, the explanatory memorandum states that there's currently no data available on the characteristics of premises or levels of compliance with existing statutory obligations. But the Cabinet Secretary said that, by 2027, we will have a complete register, so we will then know where these properties are. It sounds, then, as if it's relatively straightforward to say, 'By date x, you will need to have got a licence.' Why is this such a complicated thing when we've already got the registration processes in train?

It's not necessarily complicated, but it needs to be—. There are other models out there, there are other regimes out there that we could follow, and as you said, we'll have a list from the register of premises that are out there. But it just needs to be resourced properly, so it's not necessarily a complicated thing, it's just having the resources to do that process.

Okay, and some of it could be done by AI, potentially.

Potentially.

Okay.

Can I, maybe, come in there? What I'm seeing from the Bill is that, as part of that application for a licence, you would be asking for gas certification, electrical certification, carbon monoxide evidence, that kind of thing. That is a time-consuming thing to review, so processes need to be set up for that, platforms, databases, review systems—

AI.

Yes, AI could potentially provide part of a solution here. So, that will be the reason why you would need significant resources. The issue then is: what if you come across problems with those certificates? What we're finding, through audits of letting agents, is that they are getting all of these certificates in place, because they have ticked a box—they needed one, so they've got one—but then they haven't addressed the issues that the certificates are highlighting. So, you will need people with the expertise to be looking at that information and working out what needs to happen next.

Okay.

You're going to need upfront investment. If you're going down the AI and digital tools, you're going to need that upfront investment to invest in that sort of technology as well.

Okay. And lastly from me: is the WLGA content with the wording of the general fitness standards set out in section 7? Will it capture some of the issues that Councillor Thomas has highlighted around waste and noise issues, which are the ones that residents—permanent residents—tend to complain to all of us about?

I think that there's a view that there's additional guidance needed, both for customers and for inspectors, to ensure consistency. Yes, I think that that would be straightforward for you.

Okay. But is there enough clarity between the general fitness standards that we already have in place for people renting homes on a long-term basis, and the fitness standards that are going to be required for holiday lets?

So, it's a different standard, is what I would say, and that's probably right. You're looking for something different when you're going on holiday. But there are 29 hazards that are listed for housing accommodation generally, and this is much, much shorter. We haven't been consulted, to my knowledge, about whether those particular items are the appropriate items to be thinking about. And I don't, from memory, remember waste management being in there particularly, or anti-social behaviour and those kinds of issues. So, it might be that that would come out from the guidance that we think is appropriate.

Rubbish collection isn't, but it was an issue that was raised last week with the Cabinet Secretary, and it's something that, potentially, could be an amendment to the Bill. What would be the view of the WLGA about the advisedness of that?

We'd support that.

Okay, thank you.

Just one brief point. Bethan, in response to one of Jenny's questions, you said that reviewing the documentation is quite a resource-intensive exercise. When we spoke to the revenue authority last week, they were quite blasé, really, in that AI will be able to do this, and that there's nothing to see here. Would your experience be that AI is there or thereabouts, able to do the bulk of the work, or that, no, it will require people on the ground to actually go through this paperwork, and that the emphasis in the explanatory memorandum on AI is misplaced?

It might be that we're behind the curve in Rent Smart Wales. At the moment, we're not using AI to review that information. We're looking at it and exploring it. So, I can only really speak from how much time it's taking us at the moment, which is quite considerable.

I just note that your organisation has got about 100 people involved in running it. The explanatory memorandum on this piece of legislation says that about 30 people would be required to operate this scheme. Would that, in your opinion, be quite an underestimation of the number of people, given your experience, that would be needed to deal with this type of licensing scheme?

That's a really hard question. When we set up our scheme, we spent hours and hours trying to work things out, time-wise, and I'm sure that the officials here will have done the same. We've got 200,000 properties, don't forget, and what we're talking about here is 40,000 properties. So, I would expect this team to be smaller. Also, because the registration element is part of the levy team, it's smaller again, because of that, isn't it? So, it may be appropriate, but—

Thirty doesn't sound unreasonable, purely using the number of properties as a metric.

Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Hannah.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I was going to turn, finally, to implementation and regulation-making powers. My first question is to the witnesses to see if you've got any reflections or opinion on the level of detail that's on the face of the legislation of the Bill itself and what has been left to regulations that Welsh Ministers either can or must make in the future, if it's directed to the WLGA in the first instance. Diolch.

So, I think, between the face of the Bill and what's in the explanatory memorandum, that's pretty comprehensive, as far as it goes. We've talked through today issues around, for example, interpretation of the fitness standards, and, I think, fundamentally, the question of resources and capacity, that's where our concerns would lie. But, in terms of detail as far as the regulation-making powers are concerned, I think we'd say the EM is pretty good.

Also, are there any reflections from the panel on the fact that the Bill, as currently drafted, doesn't require Welsh Ministers to undertake a post-implementation review? This is something that we had a conversation with the Cabinet Secretary on in our first session on this last week, and I think he's of the opinion that it's something that Ministers will automatically do, but the committee were posing questions. Given where we are, perhaps, in the electoral cycle, is this something that you think should be on the face of the Bill?

I think a post-implementation review is sensible and, I guess, you safeguard the Senedd against whatever happens post May if that's made a requirement on the face of the Bill. I don't see why that would be a problem, to include it as a requirement.

Thank you. My final question, Chair, is related to the implementation and the practicalities of it, and so I think it's for all witnesses, really. The Welsh Government's ambition is to have the licensing system up and running by early 2029. From your perspectives, do you think that's achievable?

It seems achievable, but it really will depend on the resources that you have in place to set it up and to work up all the different elements that need to be put in place. When Rent Smart Wales was introduced back in 2015, it was introduced a year after the Royal Assent of the legislation, so we had quite a short period of time; that brought problems. So, it does absolutely need to be more time than that—that was insufficient. But, yes, three or four years would seem achievable.

We've talked about data sharing and databases—I think that's one thing that would have to be worked out. If there is going to be a strong role for AI, that needs development and testing, because, if we're saying AI is going to sign off gas safety certificates, there needs to be a degree of assurance around that, and all of that will take time.

Did I hear earlier correctly that, Bethan, you said that you don't use AI at the moment in Rent Smart Wales? It's a manual exercise, desktop, so there's no use of AI at all at the moment. That's interesting.

But 2029 is four years away, so—

But the explanatory memorandum is putting a lot of store on AI, and then they reference Rent Smart Wales constantly as a source of inspiration for a lot of the work that's gone into this, and yet, as an organisation, you don't use AI as such, then. I mean, I've been hearing about AI since the year dot as such, then, and it's mostly bypassed me, it has, but cleverer people than me are more familiar with it.

Maybe I should clarify that we do use it in parts of the organisation, but not specifically for this purpose.

That's helpful to understand. I'm grateful to you for saying that. Hannah. Sorry, Jenny.

Only if Hannah's finished.

Hannah, have you finished, or have you got—?

I've finished, diolch, Chair.

Jenny.

As there's a wee bit of time, Chair, I wondered if I could just go back to this business of these shared services that local authorities do or don't have for enforcement. I just wondered if Cardiff, Bridgend and the Vale of Glamorgan are the only shared service, or are there others, and, if it's more than one, perhaps you could send us a note.

No, it is only shared regulatory services in Cardiff, Vale and Bridgend who’ve got that formal arrangement. That's not to say that other local authorities might not work with neighbouring authorities on certain things, and, certainly, Bethan mentioned the expert panel, for example, for housing; there are expert panels across public protection more widely. So, we work regionally. We might work on projects on specific areas where the intelligence is telling us that there's a particular sort of problem. So, in this sector, for example, the health and safety expert panel, there may be an increase in complaints about hot tubs in this sector. So, they will do a particular project as a region, as a Welsh region, on that. There's no other formal arrangement, though, other than SRS.

So, has the WLGA hosted any seminars for local authorities to discuss how we're going to be able to do this licensing arrangement efficiently and effectively?

Not that I'm aware of.

Not yet. Okay.

Just on SRS, which is probably about 10 years old now, there were two main reasons, as I recall, for establishing it, (1) so that very specialist expertise, which is very rare, can be shared across authority boundaries and applied accordingly, and there was a significant degree of budget saving at the time as well.

You make a good case. Why do you think other local authorities haven't done that?

I think you'll have to ask them.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions from anyone? The thought of hot tubs at 10:20 on a Thursday morning in the Senedd is something that will capture my imagination for the rest of the day, really. Perhaps it's not a thought I should have in my mind. Are there any other points you'd like to leave with the committee? Because, obviously, we'll be formulating a report that will go before the Senedd in the Stage 1 process. But are there any other thoughts or a particular thought that you'd like to leave with the committee?

I think, to summarise the position, there's good reason to do this, but you need to think about how it's resourced in terms of capacity, how does the relationship between a central licensing authority and the enforcement arm, whatever that is—we would say it should be councils—how that looks. But, in principle, we're supportive.

Okay. Thank you very much. A record, a transcript, will be sent over for your good selves to have a look at. If there are any issues with that record, please liaise with the committee clerking team. But, otherwise, that will be the official record of your evidence to this report. And I thank you for your attendance today.

We'll now move into private session while we set up for the next panel, which will begin at—10:40? Yes, 10:40. Thank you.

Okay, we're back in public session now for the second evidence session of the day. I will ask you to introduce yourself formally and your name and position within the organisation you represent, and then I'll begin with questions. We have Llŷr from the Federation of Small Business Wales on Zoom, so if I could ask Llŷr first, then David and then Rowland to introduce yourself and say the position for the record, please. Llŷr.

Hello. I'm Dr Llŷr ap Gareth, head of policy at the Federation of Small Businesses Wales.

I'm David Chapman, the executive director for UKHospitality Cymru.

Rowland Rees-Evans. I'm chairman of the Wales Tourism Alliance.

Okay, thank you. Do you, starting with David, agree with the general principles of this legislation that's before us?

Yes, we do, the general principles. I was thinking on the way here, actually, that we were discussing this between my organisation and the Wales Tourism Alliance going back 20 years as a need for the industry. When the tourism tax element came forward, we felt it was essential that it was combined with statutory registration so that our professional businesses—the hotels and the larger businesses—were on a level playing field with the short-term let industry, and also to help Welsh Government, because one of the things that we've felt over a long period of time is that this industry has been under-realised in terms of its impact and its potential on the Welsh economy and the status in Wales. That's largely because we don't have adequate data about exactly how big it is. I think that this statutory registration scheme will show—. A lot of people will be surprised in fact; it will surprise a lot of people about the scale of this industry across Wales, the importance it has for every community and to the Welsh economy. So, we're in favour of statutory registration.

Going into the more licensing side of things, we have some concerns over that, which we will mention, but in particular the timing, because, as I said at the beginning, we've had 20 years to discuss this and it seems a little bit going short to try to cram it into five months, when we've got plenty of opportunity to discuss how it could be implemented and what the real purposes are from an industry point of view, as well as from a Government point of view.

Thank you, David. Rowland.

Yes, I'll just add to that. I won't repeat what David said, but I think the registration part should have come long before the rest of it, because then we would have had all the data, all the information. And I don't know if any of you remember Dr Calvin Jones. He tried to run this through models, but he didn't have any data and he said at the time, 'This is not going to be very good because I haven't got any data to put in properly.' Now, if we'd have done registration, which the industry shouted about for years, then all that information could have been run through all the models and you probably would have had, could have had, a totally different answer. And I think the licensing part—again, we're going to go into that in detail—we have reservations on some parts of it, but there are parts of it that are obviously quite good as well. But we'll tease that out as we go along. Thank you.

Thank you. Llŷr.

Yes, I'd echo what David and Rowland have said, really. We're happy with the principle of a licensing regime if it supports a level playing field across providers. There are questions in terms of to what extent that happens with this, which we'll probably get into. And I think the curtailed timeline, similarly, causes some concern, alongside lack of data at the moment. I think there is room to maybe look at whether there's something now that we can say that there will be a need to review and revisit the licensing regime once the registration process has been in place and data collected over the course of the next couple of years. Because I think that we might well be doing some of the assessments and shaping the regime based on false assumptions. I think David has touched on that already.

But, yes, in principle, we want a good, level playing field, a regime that provides better information on which to do policy. So, in principle, we're happy with that side of things, but there are concerns about the curtailed timeline and some parts of the regime as well.

Okay. Building on that observation that David and Llŷr have made about the timing of the legislation, it is a fact that we're coming to the end of the session and Government time is running out now, with the election in May. What are your concerns about the timing of this piece of legislation coming before us, and what impact do you think that squeeze on timing might have for your members and those who will fall under this piece of legislation, if, indeed, it'll have any effect, other than the desired effect to create a licensing scheme here in Wales? David, I'll go to you first, and then Rowland and then Llŷr.

It's not only five months, it's actually a restricted amount of time as well, isn't it? I mean, it's a number of days that we've got to go into detail on this. The industry has been beset with a lot of regulation over the last five years, some of it necessary, coming from the COVID times, and some of it being from a political perspective regarding things like 182 days and tourism tax in particular. We're here to help, and we feel that the truncating of a process, understandably because of the term of Government, is not going to help us get the type of scheme that we want to see implemented and we're keen to see implemented alongside Government. We just don't feel that there's enough time to be able to contribute or to get the necessary information into the process, particularly without statutory registration being part of that process. It would greatly help if we were able to extend this process. I understand that there's a limitation on being able to do that, but it would greatly help if it was almost looked on in two parts, and that is to sort of set things up in this Senedd term, and then to look at how it could be improved in the next Senedd term, and added to in the next Senedd term.

So, you would prefer to see this Bill come in the next Senedd term, after full and robust consultation and discussion around the draft Bill.

We would. We want to see statutory registration—

The registration could take place now. I think that's fairly straightforward, and it could be quite easy, and that could be started fairly quickly. But I think the question has to be is this emergency legislation. And if it's not, why are we rushing it? As an industry, we're behind this part of the legislation, and we want to get it right. If we can't get it right and we're rushing it, then we're going to end up with something that isn't going to work properly, possibly, and we're going to have to come back and review it, and I don't think that's good for anyone.

So, you think we could have a deficient piece of legislation because it's been squeezed.

Yes, it's been squeezed. There were only two or three weeks of consultation. That wasn't really enough time for us to get everything together. I've been working closely with the Professional Association of Self-Caterers to try and get as much as we could together, and it's been a trial.

Jenny, I think you indicated.

Statutory registration will have been completed by 2027, according to the Cabinet Secretary. Do you contest that? Because it seems to me that is the basis of the information that we need.

This is the problem. We don't know what's in that data, and I think we need that data to then look at everything. At the moment, we're looking for an all-encompassing national licensing scheme. That's what we want. But there's a huge section, totally unregulated, not even part of this, so you're never going to get it. So, you can't get a national—

Sorry—a huge section of what?

There's a section of our industry that isn't included in this at all, that is unregulated, and that's the single rooms in premises, et cetera. They're the people that we need in here to make it the level playing field. That's where we need to go to get it all on the level playing field. And when I say they're unregulated, there is nothing to stop them just opening a room and putting them on the platform and renting them out. So, I think, if we get the registration done, there's nothing stopping us then looking at the licensing, to work with it, which would be in the next term anyway. But, at the moment, we're just rushing it through for the sake of rushing it through because of the legislation. And we get that. We understand—

Yes, but on the other hand, it's not the most complicated piece of legislation on this earth. I've been involved in things way more complicated and more encompassing. It's very specific.

Fine. I agree with you: it's not that complicated. But what we've been given now is complicated. There are lots of things we will come to in a minute, I'm sure, but it just makes it that much worse for the businesses, agencies and whoever is doing it to get all that information right, in the right format. We heard from Scottish tourism. They gave us the good points and the bad points. I heard them, and there were a lot of good things in there that I thought, 'Yes, we can work with that', but the bad ones are where they went because they rushed.

There were question marks over the role of the Scottish Government there. But anyway, let's see what we can do with the time we've got available.

Okay, Jenny. Llŷr.

I think that some of the tensions are arising precisely because of that curtailed timeline due to the election. I think there's an enthusiasm to get something on the books by then, which I think makes the need for the legislation to be more specific. As Rowland says, perhaps it can't cover everybody, and therefore that—[Inaudible.]—idea that it's doing a level playing field and therefore reacting to what the sector feels it needs.

The other side of it, though, is, in a way, we know that the licensing regime won't come into place until 2029. So, there will be a need to revisit this then. The problem is perhaps that we are putting the legislation in place with the secondary legislation to follow in a way that we're putting the cart before the horse. We don't have the data perhaps to be able to say what in this legislation might be problematic. I do get we need to start somewhere, but it does feel like once the registration process has been through, we'll need to look at this again and we'll need to understand the impact assessments again. And, of course, a future Government might want to go further. So, there is still quite a lot of uncertainty there.

Just to make the point that it's quite useful to have a timeline of what the aim is for 2027 and then 2029 in terms of knowing what's coming. From our evidence, you'll know that we've called for there to be a single portal, a single digital platform, for example. Knowing that that's going to need to encompass any possible levies, the registration side, and also in future a licensing side, allows us perhaps to plan more for how to make that portal more accessible and better for businesses as well. There's no reason why that couldn't possibly be used to provide more support for businesses, to allow them to access any reliefs they're entitled to, to provide information, to provide marketing material to people. [Inaudible.]—idea of how to approach things like that in implementation, it is useful to know what's coming down the track. The question is whether that needs to be legislative or whether it needs to be outlined in strategy with a timeline in place.

But in any case, I think the important thing is that once the registration has happened, there will need to be a review and a scrutiny process in 2027 to look again to see whether the impact assessments hold water, whether we are basing this on the right assumptions. And, of course, as the Cabinet Secretary said last week, this process in itself is part of the process to collect that data, but we do need to make sure that we are then looking at it with better data before going ahead with full implementation, as it were.

Okay. Thank you, Llŷr. Luke.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. I think the answers that we've had so far have been very useful and they've pre-empted a lot of my questions as well, specifically on the evidence base and the level playing field aspect of this Bill. From what I gather, the panel believes that the evidence base hasn't been robust enough to see this Bill through in its entirety and what you would like to see is that the evidence is gathered before we progress to the next stage of the Bill, but there is agreement that the Bill does provide that level playing field. Is that a fair characterisation of what we've heard so far from the panel?

In short, I think, yes.

But when you say 'level playing field', we won't get that with this Bill as it is now. There's no way, because the one section that's totally unregulated isn't part of it, which is the area that we all crave for, as it were—not because we're against them; it's because they would be on the same level as everyone else.

That also answers the question that I asked the previous panel in terms of the phased approach that the Government is taking to including various different parts of the sector. So, you would want to see that entire—

Well, it should have been part of this—

So, the sector in its entirety should be involved in this, not just that—

I think when we come on to it, you'll find that something like over 80 per cent of the self-catering sector at the moment is already doing all this. So, it's just a case of them getting their licences and carrying on. They're already regulated. Because what people don't understand sometimes is, if you don't put your health and safety, fire regs, gas certificates, and all these other certificates in place, your insurance won't cover you if something happens. So, it does concentrate the mind before starting, and a lot of the agencies require these certificates before they will actually help rent those businesses out. So, I think there are a lot of good things. We're just pulling it all together, and we're going to be paid [Correction: 'and we're going to be paying'] for the privilege of doing it, I think. But that's another point anyway; we'll come on to that as well.

But I agree: if this is going to move on at a later stage, yes, but we can't see why it shouldn't be in here now, why it isn't in here now, and that's one of the biggest—. I think the industry is feeling a bit hampered, because we've had 19 or 20 legislative bits thrown at us over the last five years, and a lot of them are actually directed at self-catering, which is obviously the big part of this Bill. You can deal with most things, one or two things, but when you put a pile of things together, the impact is obviously starting to tell out there, and there will be more evidence coming out as we go forward. So, we'll see how that pans out.

I agree with you. If we're not including the entire sector in that initial roll-out, then getting the true scale of the sector is going to be very difficult. And I think a lot of people will be quite surprised about the scale of the sector, just in Cardiff alone, and elsewhere in Wales.

We just don't know.

I think it also provides an opportunity to be able to look across the whole of the industry and see how you can consolidate some other legislation that's there, and to complement the other legislation that's there—the 182 days and other things. I saw that that was mentioned in the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee when the First Legislative Counsel raised that as a possible further piece of work. I think we would very much welcome the opportunity for complete consolidation of where the industry is and where it's going, with the opportunity that's being provided now.

So, I'm not hypercritical of what's happening; I understand the processes, don't get me wrong. I just feel that this is something that could be extended, and probably will inevitably be extended because of a review process into the next Government. There's an opportunity here for us to look, together—because the industry is very much on side—at how we can actually find and develop this level playing field, and to look at so many other anomalies that have occurred as a result of the legislation, on 182 days, and on tourist tax as well, as we've gone into implementation stages. The offer from us is always there to do that, and we're not opposing; in fact, we're supporting. So, it's about finding the best way to make the very most of this piece of work, really.

Given that we've touched on the cumulative impact of policies, I think that term 'cumulative impact' has been following the Government around in a number of different portfolio areas in this Senedd term. My feeling is that you don't think that the cumulative impact of policy decisions for the tourism sector has been adequately taken into account for this specific Bill. Rowland.

The registration part is not an issue. I think that part, as I said, we should have done first, then brought all this forward and had a look at it. I'm talking about the tourism levy as well. I don't think we all realise what we've got. It's one of the biggest industries in Wales now, and we don't know what we've got. And that's not sad or worrying, but I think when we get that information—. Because so many of our businesses are just spread out across the country, everywhere, and there are pockets. Obviously, companies like Mid Wales Tourism, Visit Pembrokeshire, north Wales and all those bring a lot together, but it doesn't bring them all together. I think this registration will do that, and then Government will have the data, and Visit Wales, local authorities, the industry itself. And I think that it would be far more beneficial for us to make informed decisions on what we're trying to achieve.

I mean, the licensing, I'm assuming from what I've read, is there for safety reasons, so that we can shout from the rooftops and say, 'It's safe to come and stay anywhere in Wales because we're licensed.' Fine—that's great. We'd love to put that on our websites and advertise that, but unless you're going to bring everyone in, it's not going to happen, and there is going to be that pocket that is totally unregulated, still part of the tourism industry in Wales, and we've got no control over it. I think this was the opportunity to bring it all into one place and move on. We're for this; we're not against this. It's quite a different sort of scenario coming into a committee to agree with things with Government, but it's not that I'm against Government either. But I think if you had that situation and you could bring them in, then that would obviously be beneficial across the board.

But, Rowland, you do disagree with the scope of the Bill, in that it's missing out a large sector of the offer.

What I'm saying is that, in principle, we're agreeing with the fact that there would be registration and a licence—

It's the width and band that you find trouble with. Could I ask Llŷr to come in, because I appreciate he hasn't had a chance to speak on this particular section? Is that all right, Luke? Llŷr.

Yes. There's a lot there, and I'd echo what's already been said, in many ways. I think there is a danger for some parts of the sector of this feeling like everything, everywhere, all at once, and that cumulative impact can be lost sometimes. From a Government perspective, in doing things measure by measure, almost, you might not appreciate how these things all cumulatively have an impact on specific businesses. And I think there is something here in terms of looking at this piece of legislation and the fact that it is geared towards—. You know, it's quite specific and narrow in where it's aiming at. This makes complete sense from a sort of top-down Welsh Government perspective, because you might not want to do it all at once—there's a curtailed timeline now for this Parliament—but the effect is that, actually, that's being focused on a sector that has had quite a lot this term already. I think even the Cabinet Secretary said last week that it had been—nicely understated—a relatively busy period for the sector.

So, I think there is something in terms of that cumulative effect, and going forward, the sector wants to engage. We want a positive message going out to visitors. And I think there is scope for that now, moving forward—[Inaudible.]—and I think this is partly because, obviously, the agenda tends to have to be top down. But on that partnership approach that the explanatory memorandum says is the aim in developing the tourism sector, and having the partnership from Government with the sector, it has felt for the sector slightly like it's being 'done to', rather than being 'done with'. I think it's important, moving forward, that we do look at making sure that that side of being 'done with' is the focus for the next Parliament, in terms of how we make sure that we bring the sector with us, that we make sure we take that expertise and use it. So, I think that's the important part of it, and that's perhaps needing to take on board what the businesses themselves need and want, and how this regime, and how anything arising from the work of WRA and that sort of thing, can, as businesses, help make it better for all of us in terms of how we sell Wales to the world.

One final question from me, Chair. Again, it's on this cumulative impact bit. Is there any idea, then, from the panel, as to what the effects have been on people within the sector, whether that's people coming into the sector or even leaving the sector? If I could start with Llŷr, and then I'll come to David and Rowland. Llŷr.

Sorry, in terms of cumulative effect for the sector. Well, from our perspective, it is that side of being felt like this is 'done to', I think. For some, individual measures might not actually have that effect, but there is a fear and a perception that it can be—. There is a fear that there are legitimate businesses that are being seen as a problem to which this is a solution, and I think that that needs a strategic vision and a vision that is very positive. I think, to be fair, the Cabinet Secretary's commentary last week was more positive, perhaps, than some of the things that we've heard in terms of the explanatory memorandum. But it's important that that messaging gets out there to businesses, that this is part of a positive vision for the sector; it's not looking to see things as a problem and that sort of thing. It's a really important sector for the Welsh economy. It's really important that Government and the sector work together to develop the sector. Now, that's the messaging that's been part of this particular legislation a bit, but I'm not sure that that's getting to the doorsteps of businesses, and I think that that needs to be made clear in any communication strategy going forward, when this whole agenda is now moving to implementation.

David, Rowland.

Thank you. I've got some information from our members. PASC, the Professional Association of Self-Caterers UK, are members of ours and information that they've provided, referring to what Rowland said about the interventions, they estimate that there have been 19 different ones. Most of my members, directly, are larger businesses, and they've already been regulated and they want a level playing field, and so do PASC members, but in terms of the combination of different legislation that we've seen over the last few years, PASC are saying that the strain is now showing on their businesspeople. They're mainly microbusinesses. The majority of self-catering owners in Wales are female—about 53 per cent—and over 60 years old, and two thirds of the owners live within 10 miles and more than half live next door to the properties that we're talking about. So, you can get a picture of the types of businesses that are involved and the amount of resource that they've got to be able to run a business.

A survey that PASC did said that 94 per cent of their members felt that they were more stressed than prior to the introduction of 182 days alone, for instance. So, that's an indication of how the pressures are applying. And there are debt worries that are associated with premiums on council tax at the switch that goes from the 182 days from business rates to council tax. And that financial pressure is obviously putting further burdens onto those businesses. So, there's a snapshot there of a portion of the industry where conditions are changing as a result of the legislation.

But, on the positive side of things, I think we've got a chance to combine this. Statutory registration should provide us with the type of information that can actually truly inform some policy decisions in areas such as second homes and how that works, and you will have a true picture of where the industry is, how it works and what it's likely to be contributing, should an appropriate economic impact assessment be made on the back of that new information, about the contribution it makes to local economies. And so then you would be able, politically, to make the balances between the economic and other issues such as local housing, and other things, and to make arguments about it. But that information hasn't been available until now.

As a final point, I'd say that one of the things that has occurred with both the tourism tax and the 182 days and now heading into this is a genuine appraisal of the impacts in advance of that application, and we haven't seen—. The economic impact assessment that was done for the tourist tax was extremely limited and within the bounds of possibility at the time. It was a reasonable report, I think. But the data was from 2019 in that, and the industry is completely different, and so is our customer base, in fact, in that period. And so if we'd gone into legislation with an appropriate economic impact assessment being made, and if that did mean that statutory registration was needed for that to happen, then we could have had a wholly different and more of a community-based policy set-up, I think, which we could have contributed to as well. I'm sorry to go on a bit about that, but we've got a chance to consolidate things here and to improve where there's a need to improve, and I think that, particularly with 182 days, we're getting a feeling that there's movement there to see how we can make that work better. And we do need to have more information about how that could be done.

I don't want to stop the flow of conversation, but the clock is racing on a bit—

Sorry, Chair.

—but it's a very important point to touch on, the level of regulation and legislation that's hit the sector. Did you want to—

All I wanted to add to that is that the Valuation Office Agency came out with a report recently and 60 per cent of self-caterers are hitting the 182 days, which means 40 per cent aren't. Now, the problem we've got is, if that 40 per cent stays at that level, they're not going to be there in two years' time, because they'll be out of business and that will, obviously, have a knock-on effect, I think.

The other thing we haven't mentioned at all is the mental health issues that are starting to occur and arise. There isn't a piece of work being done on it yet, but I am sure there will be in the near future.

You introduce a very important point there, Rowland. Luke, any other points? No.

On licensing, we've touched on the point about the scope of the Bill—Rowland, you introduced it—about it not being broad enough and that there are areas that haven't been captured by it. If I could ask David and Llŷr: do you agree with that sentiment? Does it need to be a wider Bill, capturing those single rooms that Rowland touched on as well, or are you happy with the scope of the Bill, that it's capturing what it sets out to achieve?

Well, I think if you—. I mean, I don't want to break rank particularly, but I think the important thing is that we have statutory registration—that's my feeling. When you're going into adding licensing to it, then why not make a complete job of that? And that's where the spare rooms element is part of the whole fabric that should be looked at.

When we first had discussions during the tourism tax, unfolding the tourism tax, we were discussing then the possibility of statutory registration first and licensing to come along a bit later. Now it's moved forward and joined. Maybe that was a missed opportunity. I still feel that it would be better to have a complete picture of where the industry is before we move forward, but I understand the reasons why that has happened. But if you're going into licensing, then everything that is involved in terms of property lets should be involved in it.

Okay. Llŷr, do you have a view?

I'd agree with what David said there. I think I'll leave it at that.

Okay. You can come again, you can. [Laughter.]

Right, the level of the fee. They've talked about £75 as the level of the fee, they have. I appreciate that the Cabinet Secretary is on record as saying that that is just an indicative level, because this isn't going to be introduced until 2029. So, we could be in a different world altogether then with inflation and whatever else might feed in. But to give a feel for where they envisage it being, £75 is the figure that they have talked of. Do you have a view on the figure that they have talked of and the realistic level of fee that might be levied going forward?

Yes, I think that's far too low. I honestly can't see how they're going to get that. I mean, it was £4.5 million, was it, the budget to do the licensing part? When you start putting all the people in and the work, if 30,000 applications come in, have they got enough people to deal with them? The first year is obviously going to be the worst year because you are going to have the teething problems and all the rest. But Rent Smart Wales is £250, £255, is it, something like that? We heard from the Scottish Tourism Alliance and the PASC up there, and they were talking about thousands for some people. So, where does this fit in? And I'm not sure how that's been calculated or how it's been justified.

And I worry because the next thing that'll happen is the industry will be told, 'Right, you've got to get your licence', bang, £200 or £300, or, 'You've got 10 units, oh my God, it's £1,000, £2,000.' And I think that is a worry, because we're already doing all this, the majority of the industry has already got all these certificates and are safe, et cetera, and now we're going to be charged a licence fee that may be way over what's been predicted at the start.

David, have you got a view on the fee that they have talked of?

To do my reputation down, I'll agree with Rowland and pass on. [Laughter.]

Lovely. Llŷr.

Yes, it does seem low on the face of it. It seemed, last week in the evidence, that it was predicated very much on the use of AI. I'm not sure if we'd want to put all our eggs in that basket without thinking that there might be something that could go wrong.

The other thing is, I guess, the difference with Scotland is around scale, in terms that the WRA is a centralised system in that sense, rather than it being, as in Scotland, 32 different licensing regimes, basically. So, I guess there is an element where that will help, but £75 seems optimistic.

I think also just to point out, I guess there's the danger of this impact assessment based on the possibility of using AI, but also, as we've mentioned, we're not sure about the size of the sector. We are unsure about some of the data. There is a danger of a low-ball estimate then raising substantial costs later on, and that having an issue around the trust of the sector as well. This, I guess, goes back to the need to perhaps look again at these costs when we have better data, and possibly in terms of AI, looking at where that has been used elsewhere, and what the actions were.

So, would you like to see a cap put on the fee on the face of the Bill?

Is that possible?

Well, anything is possible. It's whether the Minister accepts it or not.

Obviously it would be far more beneficial for the industry to prepare for it, and then we'd know, ‘Right, it's going to cost x.’

Great, that's a—. David, yes? Llŷr?

Yes.

Great, that's fine. We'll move on to the next part, the length of the licences now, which is a 12-month period, and then a renewal. Are you content with the length of time that this is scoped out for in the legislation?

Yes and no. I think we've got to remember here that a lot of the information that's going to be uploaded or kept on file or whatever it is, or whatever system we have, a lot of that information will have an end date on it, i.e. a gas certificate one year, electric certificate probably five years or whatever. Surely the licence itself, as long as those are kept up to date, a three- to five-year licence would be acceptable. Because at the end of the day, you're talking about an industry that's been self-regulated for a long time on the self-catering side and had the trust of the agents who say, 'This certificate is out of date; get it updated, otherwise we can't promote you.'

Is there a need to come back every year just to say, 'Are my licences okay?' If it's a tick-box exercise and it doesn't cost anything, fine, as long as everything's in place. Because if your gas certificate runs out—. And I would imagine with all the technology today, you'd put in the end date when you were uploading it, so that a month before, it would send you an e-mail saying, 'Your gas certificate's going out on this property—get it sorted. If you don't, we're going to come and enforce on you', which would be fine, and I think everyone would accept that, because if you don't update it and get the test done, your insurance is invalid. So, it concentrates the mind of the business operator.

So, I would say a three- to five-year would be acceptable to the industry. I'm not sure if it would be acceptable to the Government, but we're not going anywhere. We want this to work, so why wouldn't we have that ability to sort of manage it amongst ourselves, as it were?

Llŷr, would you find agreement with that sentiment or do you want to add something different?

I'd agree with that. I think there is an element where the process is about what does that resubmission, what does the renewal look like. I suspect if it's annually, it will need to be a tick-box exercise for both sides, I'd imagine, in terms of the Government bureaucracy and for the businesses. So, it's about the details, in that sense. But I defer to Rowland on whether it's better for it to be three to five years.

That's helpful, thank you. David, anything to add?

Only to say that there are consequences here for things like marketing and forward bookings. The industry is a much longer sort of life than annually, and people are booking quite often a year or more in advance for some of the premises, and the adverts that are being put into different areas have actually got quite a long lead-in time. And so it might be easier just as an organisational thing if it was three to five years rather than annually, because there wouldn't be that possible cut-off coming up towards you, although that's a small point.

And finally, on renewals, which has just been introduced—you were talking about renewals—are you content with the renewal process that's highlighted in the legislation, or would you like to see some sort of auto-renewal or some other system brought in place? I'll ask David first, then Rowland and then Llŷr.

As much as it is, I think we're reasonably content with the renewal process. The proof will be in the delivery of it.

Thank you, David. Rowland.

If it's a three- to five-year licence and it's a tick box every year until the fifth year, then I think whatever comes up then, I'm sure we can deal with. The other part of this is—. I don't know if we're going to go on to enforcement, but this would be part of the enforcement, because if you come to me and say, 'Right, you need to now get your licence', I'd send all my information up and everything, I carry on trading until that body comes back to me to say, 'Hang on, you're missing something', which then allows me to get that piece of paper, certificate or whatever it is right, and we move on. If you're going to start saying, 'No, you can't operate until you've got the licence', we might as well pack up and go home, because there's no way you can stop the business like that, bang, and say, 'You can't', because you've got all these bookings coming in. So, I think the enforcement part has to be working with the industry, as opposed to—

Well, you'll be pleased to hear we are going to get on to enforcement shortly. Llŷr, anything to add or are you content and in agreement?

Generally content. The commentary last week and the evidence seemed to suggest it should be light touch and only the information needed would be required, basically. So, yes, the proof will be in the pudding and the details later, as David said.

Thank you. Hannah.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. That was a nice segue into a section of questions around enforcement. You just touched on it there, Rowland, but I think perhaps it might be helpful at the outset if I just asked a broad question, if witnesses were able to set out their views on the approach to enforcement that is currently set out or provided for in the Bill. Is it clear at this stage who will be responsible for what? What would you like to see happen now?

You're going to have to have enforcement, because someone's got to check somewhere along the line that everyone is compliant. I just feel that we've got to have a bit of trust that if a business uploads all their certificates or whatever they need for that licence, it's up to the licensing authority then to come back and say, 'Yes, your licence is granted', or, 'Hang on, there's a problem here. Get this sorted, and we'll pass the licence.' I don't think that's being negative or forceful on the business or on the enforcement. I think the enforcement should be there to make sure we're compliant.

If a business turns around and says, 'Oh, I'm not bothering with that', then you've got an issue and then enforcement kicks in. But you've got to remember as well if that company is with an agency, the agency are going to turn around and say, 'We can't promote you, sorry, because you haven't got your regulation certificates or whatever it is in place.' So, I think it's got to be a bit of working with the industry as opposed to against it, and I think that that would work for the industry quite well.

You say it needs to be proportionate—

Hannah, just a second, Jenny's got a supplementary.

I'm just getting increasingly frustrated with this conversation. If you try to licence a car, it takes you minutes to do it. There's no human interaction, and meanwhile the system, the computer, has assessed that you've got a driver's licence, you've got insurance and you've got the MOT in place. So, I don't understand. That takes minutes and there are lots of different bodies involved in doing that. It's computerised. So, why couldn't we have exactly the same system for this licensing?

If we can get that system, perfect, great, I agree with you, but Scotland said they couldn't do it.

Well, let's just say that there seem to be some serious problems in Scotland. They're not our responsibility.

But if that were the case—. I know if you go online, you can find any CORGI registered person. So, there must be a list somewhere of CORGI registered or gas licensed people now, as they are, to just check that the licence number agrees with what you've got. Easy, if it can work, and if AI can do that, perfect. You put all the information in, and it comes back, 'Yes, your licence is done.' I couldn't agree more with you if that were possible, but I don't know if it is.

Hannah.

Thanks, Chair. I was just picking up on something that Rowland said then in terms of the role of enforcement, because, obviously, it is there to be the stick with those businesses that refuse to comply, and then it could be used as a carrot in terms of, 'If you do all this, then you'll be advertising that you have this accreditation', so to speak. But I think you were saying, Rowland, too, that enforcement could be a mechanism to get people into the right place as well. Have I interpreted that correctly?

Could you say the last bit again? Sorry.

I think you were saying about enforcement and you used the example of somebody who had uploaded all their documents or shared all their documents and there was something missing, so at that point, the role of enforcement should be to advise somebody of what they need to do to get to the right stage, rather than to actually say, 'You can't operate'; there needs to be that kind of breathing space and enforcement as a tool to get people to where we want them to be, basically.

Yes. And you've got to remember that it's in the business's interest to do it. We're not against this, we need to be there so that we know that we're compliant. And again, coming back, we are behind this part of the legislation because we know that once we get everyone on the same playing field, the level playing field, then we can all go forward together. I think the industry needs it as well in Wales. So, the answer to your question is 'yes'.

Have either David or Llŷr got anything they wish to add to that?

Yes, very briefly. I think the first thing is that it should be focused, because we've got highly professional operators running very big businesses and have done for decades and concentration should be on the short-term lets and the room rental people rather than those, because they are compliant and are used to being compliant and demonstrate that compliance in normal time. And the other thing is whatever system comes in, it should be consistent so that if it is to be, say, at local authority level in any way, then there must be an obvious way of looking at consistency across the board on that. But I fully support your suggestion that this should be an educational process as opposed to a penalising process, because I think most of the people involved would actually be desperate to comply because they would want to continue what they're doing and they want their customers to see that they offer the highest service possible. And I would imagine that, if there were any difficulties, they would largely be accidental or just oversights rather than anybody trying to avoid meeting those conditions.

Llŷr, any points?

FSB's position on this sort of regulation is definitely to start with a stepped approach, looking to encourage and support compliance, which is the principle in the Bill. So, we would support that, and it seems like that also allows that link of enforcement and engagement with the sector, so people can get to understand what the aim of the legislation is if they are ignorant of that, so that's useful.

I think one thing that came up last week, which helped to clarify some of the uncertainties, I guess, is the Cabinet Secretary mentioned that the policing would be done almost on the ground by citizens or by businesses themselves. And he did acknowledge that this wasn't clear yet. There will need to be clarity on who the central points of contact is. There might be several agencies working across, and, as was mentioned earlier, it's important that there is a central point of contact for people to make any complaints and that that's clear to anybody who wishes to complain. It'll be interesting to see, again, whether the WRA has a role in centralising that in terms of artificial intelligence and an online platform. And again, there's room to look at how that would work best alongside, perhaps, a local authority, local enforcement. So, I guess there's a lot to work out and to make clear there.

Thank you, Llŷr. Hannah.

Thanks, Chair. Just one final question from me, because I think some of it's been covered in answers. It's just with regard to the powers of entry and inspection as set out in the Bill. Do witnesses think they're appropriate and proportionate?

Ideally, a 'yes' or 'no' answer, if possible, but if you want to enlarge—

Yes. They seem proportionate.

I can see their heads nodding, so the two gentlemen here say 'yes' as well. Lovely. Thank you, Hannah. Jenny.

Thank you. Just turning to the sections of the Bill that deal with the fitness of visitor accommodation in general, so starting with section 7 and then 8, 9, 10, up to 13 for the detail, are you content with the wording of the general fitness standard that is set out here, particularly in section 7? Is there something missing, or something that you don't want to see in there? Also, what scope is there for general fitness standards to be interpreted in different ways by (a) the visitor, and (b) the accommodation provider?

Are you talking about the training part of this, or—?

No, I'm not. I'm talking about the Bill, what's in the Bill, which sets out who is—you know, in relation to things like electric certificates, gas certificates, et cetera, appropriate space for sleeping, and all of that—.

Sorry, yes. We're governed by legislation anyway—gas, electric, everything. So, if you haven't got the right person doing that job, you can't get the certificate, full stop. That's already in place in the majority of businesses now, so I don't see that as an issue at all.

Okay. So, the wording of the Bill in this respect is—you're all satisfied with it. Is that right?

I think so. As long as it doesn't lead to additional powers to those that already exist, because they are satisfactory to meet the requirements.

Was that a thumbs-up, Llŷr, to say 'yes'?

Just one question, because I'm not expert on this. It looks like a sensible approach, and the terms used seem to align with others used in other parts of housing. I do wonder, in terms of how it's applied, by property or by accommodation, or whether it would be, you know, whether it's the fitness of the operator—. For businesses, if they have to go through the licensing processes several times for many properties, that could be quite time-consuming, I suspect. So, it's just a question around whether it's suitable for it to be by property, or whether there's a way for it to be made easier for the operator, if you like, to prove their fitness of visitor accommodation as an operator, rather than—. But that's the only question that I have on that.

So, are you suggesting that, where there's a business—let's say 10 properties in X, Y, Z coastal town—that they would want to have one licence for all their properties? Is that what you—

Yes. It's a question of whether that would make things easier, or whether that would itself raise other issues. I'm not sure, but it's just a question of whether that would be possible, or, in the way that they provide the licences, that it is made as easy as possible for somebody to do it that way.

Okay. Thank you for that. We can obviously take that forward. I just want to look at section 42, which is the contractual obligation to ensure that premises are fit for visitor accommodation. Subsection (2) talks about the premises. The visitor accommodation has got to be in line with other regulations that the visitor who is entitled to reside in or at the accommodation—. For example, if you're a council tenant, you don't have the right to sublet, unless you've got specific permission from the local authority. But I have heard of people, certainly in Cardiff, renting a room that that they're under occupying, during a rugby match or something like that. But, clearly, there's a huge housing need here, and, therefore, that is not the purpose of the social housing.

Difficult one.

Well, it's possibly one that you, as representatives of the industry, are not coming across, but you can see that this is an issue for people who are in temporary accommodation. So, in terms of this contractual obligation on the licensee, are you content that you are only going to be letting it if you are entitled to do so, which is: you must have a licence, and you must have a property—

That's fit for purpose.

—that is not a dangerous place.

I think the majority of those would probably be with agents or agencies, and I think that will be controlled quite easily from that. But, again, the bit that you alluded to there is not part of this Bill at the moment anyway, you know—.

Well, it is, in the sense that that is exactly how it could be applied: to stop people who aren't licensed and therefore making money out of something that is a social asset.

But the biggest problem you've got then is: how do you find them? You know, how do you enforce on them and how do you know it's—? Because we've got no idea how many Airbnbs are in this country, in Wales alone. We've got no idea.

Can we just stop you and just say—

Sorry.

—what's going on in Ireland is that they're going to use an intelligence-led approach, which I think the Cabinet Secretary has in mind to do as well, which is that we use the information that's out there on all these websites, and also the reviews from visitors who are happy or unhappy about the quality of the accommodation they receive?

Bring them into this Bill, if that's the easiest way to do it.

Sorry?

Bring them into this Bill, and that's the easiest way to do it, because they'd then have to be licensed.

I think the intention is to bring them into this Bill—

At a later date, which we've spoken about.

—but they've got to be entitled to do it. If you're a private rented tenant, there will be specific terms for a long-term licence. In some cases, you may be able to sublet a room; in other cases, you'll have to jointly be on the tenancy agreement. I represent an area with a large number of students renting, and there may be six or eight, and, you know, clearly, the landlord has to protect their interests to ensure that they are jointly liable for maintaining the property and paying the rent.

Again, I think the licence and the agencies would control our part of it, but the other parts would be out of our remit, because, technically, if you're talking about students, it would be houses in multiple occupation and different types of housing, then. So, you'd be into a different sphere. [Interruption.] Yes, sorry—.

Okay, but you're content with section 42.

Yes.

Llŷr, are you happy with that?

Yes, we're content with it. I guess the point to make is what you were outlining there is exactly the level playing field that you'd be looking to have. You wouldn’t want to be undercut by people working in a black market situation. So, hopefully, that level of data and analysis and intelligence is part of the process of this Bill and other parts of the agenda being implemented. So, we would welcome that on the basis of it ensuring that level playing field. There are obviously a lot of parts of that jigsaw to get together, and a lot of agencies working together, and that's something that needs to happen over the next period, I guess.

Okay.

Sam.

Thank you very much, Chair. I’m conscious of time, so I’m going to keep this succinct.

We've got injury time, so don't worry.

Should the booking platforms be advertising the registration number when marketing properties? Rowland.

I think this is part of the Bill, and should be, but I think that where we've got to be careful is that if a business gives the wrong details and that goes on the website we can't be shooting the messenger, as it were, the agencies. I think it's up to the owners of the properties to ensure that that is right, because otherwise they may have 500 properties or more on one platform and maybe five of them have got the wrong number by two digits or whatever. I don't think that's fair on the agency, if they've been given the wrong details. I mean, maybe they should check it, yes, and I'm sure they would anyway, but I don't think there should be any blame on the agencies for doing that. I think it's the responsibility of the licensee to do that.

Okay, I raised this in the earlier panel and they said exactly that: there should be a central registration list where these booking platforms can cross-reference to ensure it's accurate, so that's in agreement there.

They should check them anyway, but, if they do make a mistake, I don't think we can just go in and jump on top of them for that.

Okay, thank you, Rowland. David.

Yes, this is a positive move forward, and we should be looking to introduce it with a soft touch, I think, to do with things like enforcement and that, just to make sure that we get the system right and it benefits the visitor and the businesses and we encourage more visitors to come to Wales, which is what we want to do. That should be the sort of feeling behind it, rather than a stick for what could be easily made mistakes in a new regime.

Okay, thank you, David. Llŷr.

I'll defer to the expertise of the other members of the panel on this one.

Brilliant. Thank you. And then, in terms of potential impact on the supply of visitor accommodation—this has been touched on in earlier discussions—and those unintended consequences, do you believe—? Rowland, I think I can understand your answer in wanting registration prior to licensing, to better understand that. Do you think there is a strong case for splitting that element of this, so that we can better understand and minimise any unintended consequences?

Yes, there was an argument, possibly, that we should have just had registration and all the certificates together, and that would have been it, that would have been enough. However, we're going on to the licensing for other reasons, because other things can be added on at a later date, if necessary. I still think the—. What we don't want is three platforms: one for registration, one for licensing and one for levy. We want the whole lot in one platform, if possible, because you'd have one business and then you'd have all the different parts of it, so it's all there for whoever needs to see it. The licence will be separate anyway, whichever way you do it. It's going to be separate now, because, obviously, the different elements that are going to be needed for that won't be needed for registration. So, I think it'll be—. But, hopefully, it'll be part of the same platform.

David.

It's more or less what Rowland said, I think; I'm just trying to add to it very briefly. We've seen some degree of unintended consequences in previous pieces of tourism legislation over the last few years, and we should learn the lessons from that. We're here to help do that, but I still feel that it's dependent on appropriate time for that to work. I still feel that we should be looking at registration first, and Jenny's system of a simple registration/licensing format would be very useful.

It would be brilliant.

That was more or less what we suggested right at the beginning: a registration portal, which could be very easily dealt with, would be what we'd be looking for. So, let's work together to avoid what could well be a number of unintended consequences.

Thank you. Llŷr.

I'd agree with what's been said. Just to build on Rowland's point around a seamless single platform, as I mentioned earlier, we're doing some pieces of work around digitalisation and how we engage with businesses and how there's an interface there and what advantages that could bring. So, I think it would be useful to think about—[Inaudible.]—three elements of licensing registration and any aspects in a portal for businesses, that there are areas there that also provide wider support, marketing materials, that sort of thing, or, indeed, whatever businesses themselves identify as something that would be useful. I think that would be useful in terms of not just making it easy for administration, but also in terms of having a positive effect in terms of engaging with businesses, that it's not just, 'We want you to use this in order to get this material from you', but also, 'We have this to offer to you in terms of support.'

Okay, thank you. That leads me nicely on to the training. The Cabinet Secretary said that he wishes any future training to be proportionate, and details would be developed in continued conversation with the industry. Rowland, can you give us an example of what you expect that training to be and what gaps it's looking to fill that the Cabinet Secretary might be referencing?

I think we're talking about, first of all, grandfather rights, as it were, for the people who are in business now and who've been in business for years. If they weren't any good, they wouldn't be in business, I would suggest. So, I don't know what you can tell them that they don't already know. I don't know. But then, if new people are coming into the industry, then perhaps a couple of hours of training. You either know what you're doing or you don't, and if you don't know what you're doing you shouldn't there in the first place. I think that probably rings true with a lot of businesses. If you go into a business, you do all your research, you do all the work, you then start it up, and if it works, or you know what you're doing, then it works, and if you don't you struggle. From a training point of view, I suppose understanding the licence, what it means and all that sort of thing, because you're talking about legislation as far as the electric, gas, all the health and safety, fire regs. Those are part of our lives now, whether we like it or not. If you're going to rent accommodation out, you just need to have everything in place. So, I think that's the sort of area—. It's educational perhaps more than training, telling someone how to run their business.

Okay. That's helpful. David.

Yes, very briefly, my main members, in looking at the larger serviced accommodation units, wouldn’t need any training, and that would be a resource more directed into the new businesses, or the businesses that are just being discovered under the licensing arrangements—that would be possibly helpful. I don’t think there should be any compulsory training. I think it should be more of an available training for people who need it.

Okay, thank you. Llŷr, finally.

Yes, I’d say that I agree with that. In terms of the commentary in the explanatory memorandum and what was said in the evidence sessions last week, it seemed that commentary—. I guess there's room within the Bill, once it's enacted, as it were, for that to perhaps balloon a bit from light touch, and could be a disproportionate demand. So, I guess we’d to think about what level would be proportionate. I think the Cabinet Secretary mentioned three and a half hours for new start-ups to get on top of things, as it were. Something like that doesn't sound disproportionate, but we just need to be sure, as the Cabinet Secretary said, that it is truly felt that is needed by the sector and not being done to it, as it were.

Diolch yn fawr. Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Thank you, Sam. Thank you all very much for your evidence this morning. It has helped inform our deliberations on this piece of legislation. A copy of the record will be sent over to you all to have a look at. Any concerns, please raise them with the clerk, otherwise that will be the official record of your evidence. I thank you for coming today and we'll now move into private session while we change to the third panel. Thank you.

We're back in public session now for the third and final evidence session of the morning. We have three witnesses before us. I will ask you to introduce yourselves, if I may, for the record, please, with your name and position within the organisation that you represent. I'll start with Charlie, then Katherine, then Glenn up in north Wales, who's joining us on Zoom today. So, Charlie, could you, for the record, please state your name and position within the company?

Charlie Reith, I'm the director for Government affairs in northern Europe for Expedia Group, but I'm here today as a board member of the Short Term Accommodation Association.

Good morning. I'm Katherine Squires, director of policy and public affairs at the British Holiday and Home Parks Association.

Glenn.

Good morning. I'm Glenn Evans. I've held the position of chair in North Wales Tourism for over six years. My day job is overseeing the Royal Oak and Waterloo hotels in Betws-y-coed. I'm also a self-catering operator for over 25 years.

Thank you very much. I'll begin the questioning, if I may: do you agree with the general principles of the legislation that we're scrutinising today? I'll start with Katherine, then ask Charlie, then go to Glenn. Katherine.

Thank you. Yes, we do welcome the introduction of the Bill and its intention to level the playing field, particularly with a focus on short-term visitor accommodation, where oversight is currently limited. We also very much welcome that licensed holiday and touring parks are not in scope of the currently proposed framework, in recognition that the park sector is already highly regulated through both site licensing requirements and the planning consent process.

Thank you, Katherine. Charlie.

Thank you. We've been engaged on this subject with the Welsh Government for some time. As we said in the response to the initial consultation on this matter, we support a registration scheme for short-term lets. We didn't support, at that point, a licensing scheme being laid on top, but we acknowledged that that is the policy of the Government. The licensing scheme that is presented in the Bill does cause us some concern, to be honest—I'm sure we'll get into some of those matters shortly—but we do recognise that lessons have been learned from how other systems have worked in other countries, not least in the UK and Scotland. So, we're keen to work with the Government and the committee on the proposal.

Thank you. Glenn.

Our organisation represents 1,300 businesses across the north Wales region, a mixture of serviced and unserviced providers, and activities and attractions. I think there is broad support and an evidence base for regulation to create a level playing field between those accommodation providers. But for all accommodation providers, I think it's essential to get some real data as to Wales's largest private sector employer. We weren't party to the visitor levy consultation, but we do understand the need for this level playing field. Whether the Bill is the right way of doing that, I remain to be convinced.

We're on a very tight timeline with the Bill's presentation before the Senedd, and obviously the evidence session that we're doing today and then its future journey to Stage 2 and Stage 3. Do you have any concerns about the speed at which the legislation is being dispatched, and obviously, if you do have those concerns, can you share them with us today? Charlie.

Yes. We think this Bill is moving extremely fast. I think just in the amount of time that we've had to prepare written evidence for the committee, I know there's a consultation being run by the Welsh Government currently on some of the provisions of the Bill with maybe only two weeks' notice or something to provide responses. So, it does feel it's moving very fast. It's a Bill that does an awful lot in the proposal that set out a three-stage approach to regulating short-term lets in Wales. Obviously, phase 1 was dealt with by the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Act 2025. This Bill seeks to do phases 2 and 3 all at once over a multi-year timeline, granting a lot of powers to pass regulations in future to sort of fill in the gaps. We are concerned that the Senedd is being asked to approve something without a clear evidence base and time to scrutinise.

Glenn.

Yes, I think the timeline is tight. Three weeks for the consultation was extremely tight for the industry, which is already facing a ream of challenges. I draw the attention to nearly 40 per cent of self-catering operators who have failed to meet the new 182 legislation. That also attests to the need to get real data as to what is Wales's largest employer. We don't really know the full scale of the industry and the sector, and the Bill has the potential to disrupt and intervene in that marketplace and the consequences, perhaps, and unintended consequences, are not going to be fully known.

So, although it seems a relatively simple methodology that the Bill adopts, the consequential effects of it could be profound and at a scale that is as yet unimagined or unable to be quantified as far as Welsh Government is concerned.

Katherine.

I would echo my tourism sector peers in that this has been a very fast-moving Bill, with limited time to scrutinise, and it seems the driving factor is the legislative timetable rather than the requirement to give due consideration. I do think that more stakeholder engagement would always be welcome.

Talking of engagement and consultation, some of you have indicated that you have been asked for responses to a very rushed consultation process, because obviously that's the nature of the way the legislation has been presented, but there has been a build-up to bringing this legislation forward. So, what level of consultation have you managed to enjoy as organisations in working alongside Welsh Government officials, or indeed outside bodies, to try and consult on this legislation? Katherine.

I think in terms of both the registration side and the levy, we have worked closely with officials over a period of years, but the licensing element is perhaps something that hasn't had as much time to sort of bed in and give scrutiny to.

Charlie.

I would agree with that. When we first were presented with the Bill, it was a couple of weeks before it came to the Senedd, and it was made clear at that point that it was too late to make any changes to the language. I think the time before that that we had engagement on the licensing proposal specifically was the 2023 consultation.

Glenn.

I'm standing in for my CEO, Jim Jones, so I can't answer for him, but I did attend handfuls of roadshows when it came to the visitor levy that had a number of engagement opportunities between ministerial officials and the industry. I don't recall being given the opportunity, apart from today, to engage within this process. All we've been able to do to date is to consult with our 1,300 members and give some feedback in relation to those and their concerns.

So, very much a token exercise, you feel it has been. Is that fair?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, I would say that was fair.

Okay, thank you. Luke.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. One of the things that has come up consistently from those who support the Bill, and those who are perhaps slightly apprehensive about the Bill as well, is just this evidence base, the lack of data, whilst the Bill is progressing. So, I take it from some of the answers we've had already this morning that there's agreement amongst the panel that with the paucity of data, that the evidence base isn't sufficiently robust for this Bill. Is that fair?

Yes, I think that is fair. There is obviously the registration scheme coming in, which I believe will become a requirement from late next year. That registration scheme is the first time that the Welsh Government will have comprehensive data on the self-catering sector within the wider visitor accommodation piece. And until we have that data, we are speculating about the types of accommodation that fall within self-catering. So, when you're looking at doing a licensing scheme, particularly a scheme that sets a scope around self-contained and doesn't include other elements of the sector, you're doing that blind and you're making those decisions without understanding what the sector actually looks like, and that does concern us.

In a previous panel we had the suggestion that it would be much better if the Government were to firstly focus on the registration aspect of this, and to collect that data, before progressing to the licensing scheme itself. What are your views as a panel on that?

I agree with that as a proposal.

That would be a sensible approach.

Okay, and I imagine it's the same for—

Yes, I would. What I would say, though, is that, for example, the size and the speed at which the sector can move as a whole until it's actually known exactly what the make-up of that sector is—. It depends what the intention of the Bill is. If it is to capture a certain element of that sector, it may be that because one sector has been targeted, a lot of operators shift their business model to avoid licensing and move into other business models. What I've seen since COVID is that the ability of various operators to shift their business model has not only been good business but also a requirement. So, I think that registration provides that opportunity to have a look at the industry, but also, really importantly, to see how different operators respond to different legislation. There are a number of significant policies impacting, and the true effects of those, without a baseline, are simply unquantifiable, whether they're for good reasons or for bad reasons. I think that's really important to capture that baseline before we move forward.

Okay, thank you. I feel like I've said the term 'cumulative impact' too many times today and too many times over the last couple of weeks and months. But there's a definite feeling within the industry—and I think the Cabinet Secretary, as well, acknowledged this—that the number of different requirements that have been placed on the sector over this Senedd term has been significant. When looking at this Bill, do you think that the Bill has taken into account the cumulative impact of policy decisions that have been made within this Senedd term on it as a sector?

It can't be denied that it has been an incredibly busy legislative period for the tourism sector. I know that you'll have heard that over and over again. I am also mindful, though, that from a holiday parks perspective this Bill is slightly different for us as an industry. But I would agree with my broader tourism sector organisations who note that it's been a really challenging time for the industry.

I certainly agree with those comments. I think the explanatory memorandum did acknowledge that it was a particularly busy time, which we feel is a huge understatement. If you are operating a self-catering business, you're facing very much more regulation than you have done in previous years. You're potentially facing getting planning permission, in certain local authorities, and there's the ability to introduce that in other local authorities, of course. On the financial side, if you pay council tax, that may well be increased by 100 per cent. If you pay business rates, the small business rates relief has been removed, and so has the furnished holiday lets regime. Cumulatively, that is potentially thousands of pounds in additional cost to a self-catering operator. So, any additional requirements and fees have to be seen within that context.

Is there any evidence base here, or views on what has happened with the sector as a result of this? Are we seeing people leaving the sector, are we seeing people joining the sector, perhaps moving from private rented accommodation to holiday lets?

We certainly haven't seen that. It's not our experience in the association that there is a move from the long-term rented sector to the short-term sector, because of the aforementioned challenges that self-catering is now facing. We don't have evidence, because we don't have the registration scheme, about the actual numbers in the sector, and if we had that, we would be able to have that conversation.

Speaking from a holiday park perspective, of course, it's not possible to live in a holiday caravan. So, in terms of comments on the move from the private rented sector to short-term lettings, I'm not sure I can provide a helpful response in that regard.

Finally, to Zoom.

I was just going to come in there, if that's okay. I have to declare an interest that I am one of the 40 per cent of self-catering operators who didn't meet the 182-day threshold for 1 April 2022, which is a year prior to the enactment of the legislation, due to the way that the valuation offices do their assessments, which landed us with a very large, significant, retrospective council tax bill and an ongoing liability that includes the 150 per cent additional premium. I thought I was well across the legislation and yet didn't appreciate the retrospective nature of that, and I think that demonstrates—. I'm not alone in that. As I said, there are nearly 40 per cent of us within that area. So, it demonstrates that there is a cumulative impact just of the sheer volume of legislation to get our heads around and the importance of getting clear messaging and clarity.

The talk of a registration scheme followed by a licensing scheme for some operators does seem a bit onerous as well, and that communication. As far as operators’ patterns, leaving the sector, I don't know of many who have come into the sector just to have a go, but I do know of operators who have left the sector. There's a group that have become just second home owners and stopped letting altogether because of the increased burden. They're happy to bear the cost of the council tax because it's cheaper than going onto a caravan park with the depreciation and licence fees, and I also know of operators who've gone into the landlord sector because of the fire regulations being more flexible within that sector, but also the current cost of servicing makes it more sensible to be a landlord rather than a shorthold letting agent or letting operator.

Thank you. That's useful.

On licensing, I'd like to ask about the scope of the legislation. I think, Katherine, in your opening remarks, you were highlighting how pleased you were that the sector that you speak for isn't captured, but obviously we've taken evidence that indicates that that is a limitation on the legislation and actually there should be a greater catch with this legislation by including more properties into the legislation, thereby getting a stronger reaction and a stronger piece of legislation being effective in lifting standards here in Wales. What would you say to that, about the scope being limited by the description in the legislation?

I do think that being limited to short-term visitor accommodation that's self-contained will be challenging, but more with regard to spare-room hire rather than the inclusion of already highly regulated operators in the holiday park sector, who have to go through site-licensing procedures with local authorities as well as a planning consent process, both of which are, of course, highly regulated. They also have to adhere to the fire safety Order from 2005 and lots of other additional regulations. So in terms of incorporating the holiday park sector and looking at the intention of the Bill in terms of, if you look at the explanatory memorandum, things like visitor assurance, community cohesion, local authority oversight, within the existing regimes holiday parks are very well covered.

It's been the long-standing position of the Short Term Accommodation Association that if you are going to bring in regulations about the sector, it should cover the whole sector, so that would include self-contained as well as home sharing, as well as other categories. We have some concerns with the way the definition of 'self-contained' has been drawn within the Bill. I think you will inevitably, having watched schemes like this roll out in other markets, have borderline cases, particularly when it comes to converted outbuildings or granny flats or flats above garages that are self-contained in a way, but may share certain amenities. And I think you've got to be careful to make it clear for people as to whether they are requiring to have a licence or not.

Glenn, do you have a view on the scope of the licensing and the properties that should be included?

I do, you'll be pleased to hear. It depends what the actual purpose of the Bill is. Are we talking about safety and being able to put out a message to consumers that come to Wales, 'You will stay in safe, regulated accommodation'? In which case, that message needs to be across the whole sector. And if we're talking about risk, individual holiday cottages, for example, do pose a risk, but then so do large hotels. As far as I'm aware, the licensing requirements in the Bill are not reflective of the licensing requirements of a hotel in that sense. But the risk of a hotel for injury is far greater due to the occupancy and the numbers should there be an incident. So, if we're talking about safety, the absence of all operators providing overnight accommodation in Wales, which is going to be needed for the visitor levy, seems an oversight. If the true intention of the Bill is for another reason, then that gives a mixed message. The fact that there are omissions, glaring omissions within the Bill, does undermine that message of safety.

Okay, thank you for that. The level of fee associated with the Bill in the explanatory memorandum is £75. That's an indicative fee. The Cabinet Secretary himself and his officials indicate that they, because it's not going to be enacted until 2029, could be looking at a different rate by 2029. What is your view on the indicative rate at £75? Is that realistic? Does it give you confidence that officials who've come up with that figure and the Cabinet Secretary himself understand the level of fee that would be required to fund such a licensing scheme? Charlie?

We are concerned about the robustness of that figure. There are a lot of comparisons drawn in the explanatory memorandum with Rent Smart Wales. I know the previous panel covered this point, but the licence fee in Rent Smart Wales is about £250. That is a scheme that does not include the upload of documents, the checking of documents. It is a scheme that I think sets an eight-week time frame to review them. The licensing scheme for a self-catering property that we're looking at today envisages a faster turnaround with more documents to check at a lower cost and that doesn't, for me, feel credible.

I know in the evidence that has been given by officials, there's a lot of talk about how technology and AI can help facilitate that process. I think it's instructive that in Scotland, they don't have that technology and licence fees are much higher and it takes much longer to get a licence granted. In the scheme that is being brought in in England, there is not the upload of documents because they recognise it's very difficult to check them. In the European short-term rental regulation, which harmonises registration schemes across Europe, there is no document uploads, because there is no technology to check them. So, I think on the evidence in front of us, that assumption seems unrealistic.

So there's no technology available to do the AI scanning of these types of papers; have I understood that correctly?

I'm not sure I'm the spokesperson for all AI technology. I'm sure there may be solutions available, but they're not widely used in any other scheme used to regulate short-term lets.

That's across Europe, you're saying.

The registration scheme that is set out in the European short-term rental regulation, which harmonises registration of short-term lets around Europe, does not require documents to be uploaded.

Thank you. Glenn.

I think Charlie has spoken very well about concerns over the fee, and I'm particularly interested in the lack of documentation upload that he has just referred to. I do have concerns about document upload, but I think that comes under enforcement as well.

Okay, thank you. Katherine.

I think my comment would be that it would be welcome to have a commitment to consult on the fee when it's slightly clearer what exactly will be involved and what requirements are needed, both from the officials and enforcement side, and the visitor accommodation side.

We'll deal with your concerns on enforcement when we touch on that particular subject shortly, Glenn. It wasn't that I was skipping over it. We've got a section on enforcement that will be able to offer you the opportunity to speak to that then. The length of licences that is talked of is a 12-month period. Do you have concerns over that length of licensing and what would your solution be if you have concerns, or if you're content, then, obviously, say so? Glenn, I'll start with you on that one.

There are different models for periods of time. For example, Rent Smart Wales is five years, an electrical certificate on an installation basis lasts five years, and also, a premises licence holder, once you've passed the exam, there is no further accreditation or no other further need to renew that licence. I think an annual licence poses problems because documentation may well go out of date within that period of time anyway, and that touches upon enforcement. So, when it comes to renewal of licence, I really can't see what a clear solution is, because of the number of different options available.

Katherine.

The suggested, I think, minimum of a one-year period does seem short compared more broadly with similar or other licensing schemes. But, again, I think it would be helpful to know, with the statutory guidance, exactly what's involved, and, therefore, what would be an appropriate length of time.

Right, and what would your appropriate length of time be?

Holiday parks aren't included within this Bill in terms of applying for a licence, so I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to comment on the broader self-catering side of things, which other colleagues represent.

I was just looking to see if you had a professional opinion or not, then, but, clearly, you don't want to put something on the record. Okay. Charlie.

Yes, we are concerned about a minimum of a one-year licence. The Welsh Government have assured us that it is a minimum of one year, and it could be longer, but, of course, that sets the expectation within the legislation. A key point for us, I think, is that the model of licensing that's being put forward here is an apply-and-wait model. So, you submit your documents, you send in your application, you wait to be told if you are approved or not. If people have to go through that process once a year, there's always a degree of uncertainty, and that degree of uncertainty impacts booking windows. We regularly take bookings in our sector of up to two years in advance, and operators rightly want to know that they can honour those bookings, and travellers rightly want to know that those bookings can be honoured.

There are ways to get around it. If you want a one-year licensing period, then renewal really has to be very much a tick-box exercise. You could, for instance, grant a provisional licence when someone who already has a licence or is an existing operator applies, and then, when the authority eventually gets around to checking those documents, that licence is then certified completely, or, if there are issues, it is suspended. Or you could simply extend the licensing period to three to five years, which moves beyond the maximum booking windows and so gives people a bit more certainty. So, I think there are solutions here, but a one-year licence where you have to apply and wait for, potentially, six weeks, eight weeks, will not work for the sector and will cause problems.

The process of renewal isn't on the face of the Bill. It's basically left to regulation and for the Minister, whoever that might be at the time, to obviously bring forward those regulations. Would you like to see it on the face of the Bill, so there is certainty over the process of renewal, or are you content with what is proposed in the legislation at the moment? Charlie.

No, one of our concerns with the Bill is that things like the renewal process are left to future regulations, potentially under future Ministers, and we would like to see some protections for existing operators and when, eventually, they are existing licence holders that they can continue to operate. So, we would like that set out.

The other thing I would say is, when they brought in the scheme in Scotland, and a lot's been said about the Scottish scheme and how well that's worked for the industry, but one thing that they did do is that, if you were an existing operator, there was a date by which, if you applied before that date, you could continue to operate while your licence was being determined. That's something that the Welsh Government may want to consider, because it gives certainty as the scheme is introduced, which, as many people have said, is likely to be the bumpiest period for operators.

Glenn, on renewals, what view do you have on that?

I think it's really important that this comes with clarity that, for example, you're not going to have a situation where you will be registered with Welsh Government for the visitor levy and potentially not have a licence, or have a licence pending to trade; it seems important that those two pieces of information or reality are brought together. I'm very much concerned about delays in the paperwork, because of what might come out of enforcement. So, the application should be instant, pending validation later.

Okay, thank you. And Katherine, have you a view on this, or, as it doesn't affect your sector, you have no view?

I think Charlie has covered it very well, so I won't further comment.

Okay, thank you. Hannah.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. We did touch on previously and strayed into enforcement, so I'm going to pick up on that now. First, it would be helpful to hear from the witnesses any broad or initial reflections on the views and the approach to enforcement that is set out or provided for in the Bill. And just on that too, is it sufficiently clear to you at this stage who would be potentially responsible for doing what when it comes to enforcement? Diolch.

Katherine, do you want to start?

It does seem that there is a lack of clarity at the moment, but this may be covered by a statutory code of practice. In general, I note that the explanatory memorandum says

'we expect the licensing authority to take a "stepped" escalatory approach to enforcement, designed to encourage and support compliance',

and we very much welcome that principle, reflecting on our own experience within the holiday park sector, that enforcement powers benefit from granular statutory guidance. That gives both the enforcement side a sense of reassurance, but also the visitor accommodation side clarity on what to expect and perhaps what they can also push back on.

Shall I come in next?

Yes, please.

The stepped approach indeed is something that we would support. I appreciate that there is not the authority named on the face of the Bill, but I note the Cabinet Secretary's comments that the WRA is his preferred organisation. It would seem sensible to us to, first of all, have a national body responsible for licensing. I think that learns the lessons of some other areas where it's been completely devolved to local authorities. And I think uniting it with the registration scheme is also a sensible approach, but I would echo Katherine's comments. I think a lot needs to be set out in guidance about how it works in practice.

Glenn.

The Bill talks—. I understand the need for enforcement and, hopefully, more clarity will come, and I echo my fellow witnesses' comments on that. We all have our gas certificate et cetera, our fire risk assessment, but they're not always in the same cycle. So, it depends on the time frame of renewals. So, for example, if you apply for your licence and you have two years to run on your electrical certificate, that means you've got three years to go on it. So, when that expires, does that invalidate your licence, for example?

The Bill talks about five specific things that need to be enforced, and they're all matters of fact, so that seems relatively straightforward to enforce. I think the area where more clarity, perhaps, is needed is the fitness of the premises and who's going to be enforcing that. There is currently a Visit Wales scheme and there seems to be overlap between the grading criteria and some of the things that are asked under this Bill as far as enforcement. So, I'm a bit unclear. I'm trying to visualise trading standards coming into holiday cottages to inspect hygiene, for example, or fixtures and fittings, that are fit and proper for the premises. So, I think enforcement is a really difficult area for this legislation when it comes to what the consumer expectation will be, what they can expect from licensed premises and who do they go to when it comes to an appearance of lack of enforcement.

I also think the fact that the Bill doesn't cover all providers is one of the weaknesses when it comes to enforcement, because you may well have hybrid buildings that have a mix of accommodation, some of which requires licensing and some of it that doesn't. The community may expect that whole premises to be licensed and, therefore, officers will go and enforce, but, in fact, it could well be that there are legitimate reasons why some of that building is not enforced—sorry, not licensed—or, for example, the business model has changed, and there is no requirement for that business to be licensed. So, there is the potential for a lot of resources to be deployed enforcing the unenforceable, so to speak, unless there is this clear capture of all operators.

Thanks, all. Chair, I'll just pick up on a couple of the points that were made there in response to that question, and that's the kind of—. I think, in a previous session, the evidence we took was very similar, in terms of looking at enforcement to be seen as a mechanism to encourage and get premises to where they're expected or need to be. But I think you touched on guidance and the importance of what's in that guidance. Are there any initial reflections from witnesses about the sort of things that would be practical and helpful to see in that guidance? I'll go to Glenn first this time, given that he's on the screen with me as well.

I understand that and I would welcome more clarity. I think it's really important; the more clarity that's put up front, the better for operators, and the industry can then take appropriate action to respond to that. I think that when it comes to some of those standards there is a potential for overlap, and I'll revert to the other witnesses on that, sorry.

Charlie.

Sure. In terms of the sorts of things that could be set out in guidance, I think the approach to checks on properties would be valuable to understand. We would advocate a risk-based approach. So, if there are complaints about a property, obviously that then prompts an inspection, if that is necessary, certainly against the general fitness standards. As Glenn says, the specific fitness standards are more statements of fact about whether you have certain alarms or certain certificates. I would echo the point about the dates not lining up there with the licence renewal, and I think that speaks to my previous point about the ease of renewing via technology. Because if those dates don't line up and your gas safety certificate, as is highly likely, will expire before the exact date of your next licence renewal, that is where a human might need to make a judgment about whether it's likely you'll get that certificate or whether you have enough time left on it, if you see what I mean. And that's why I think the assumption about how easy it will be to renew licences is probably underdone.

Katherine.

Thank you. I think I would echo the points that have already been made, but in particular, with regards to the guidance, it would be helpful to have clarity where there are areas that are open to interpretation, so things like terminology such as 'adequate' in terms of fitness for visitor accommodation, fit for visitor accommodation. Those kinds of terms that are referenced would probably need greater clarity.

Okay, thank you. Just one final question from me, Chair, if I may, to ask: are the powers of entry and inspection as set out in the Bill, in the views of witnesses, appropriate and proportionate?

Charlie.

They have caused some concern among our members, to be clear. Some of them feel that the powers are too intrusive. Some would question why the power needs to be there to extract information from computers and electronic devices when, really, you're there to inspect the property. But we would acknowledge that there needs to be some form of power to enter and inspect a premises that is unsafe. If we're going to have a licensing scheme, that has to underpin it in some form. So, I think we're broadly content, so long as there can be reassurance set out in guidance about how these powers will be used.

Katherine.

I agree with Charlie's point there, that as long as it's supported by granular level statutory guidance, so that visitor accommodation providers know what to expect and when those powers would be used, and that they are proportionate.

And Glenn.

This is the overlap with, for example, some of the elements of the Visit Wales grading accreditation scheme, which looks at, for example, whether there is adequate provision for food storage and how these two things are going to interact. Not that there is a compulsion to register with Visit Wales, I appreciate that, but it does provide an area of potential confusion for consumers as to what standard we are talking about. And when it comes to enforcement and entering a premises, it would be, well, on which elements is entry being enforced, because the safety standards are all matters of fact, and then some of the fitness for purpose, some of those are subjective standards and overlaid with an element of Visit Wales's grading scheme. So, I think there is potential for confusion there, and as much clarity as possible would be helpful.

We're also a service of choice rather than a service of need, and I think that should be borne in mind when we're talking about proportionality. So, for example, if you've signed up for a tenancy for nine months, it's very difficult to get out of, whereas if you turn up at your holiday accommodation and you're not very happy with it, you've probably paid by credit card, and therefore you could walk out, get a refund and there's no loss. So, it's a very self-regulating landscape when it comes to some of the subjective standards with peer reviews. There's very little hiding place now on the internet for standards of operation, for example. Operators will soon be outed. So, I do question what problem we're trying to fill when it comes to the Bill, and perhaps greater clarity is needed with that.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Hannah. Sam.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Thank you. Thank you, panel, for your evidence so far. Is it right that a booking platform or a platform advertising properties should be held responsible if they've been provided with the wrong licence number by someone looking to advertise their property on there, or should there be some flexibility? Charlie.

No, we don't believe that is right and proportionate, and the way that section 46, I believe you're thinking of there, in the Bill is worded is currently vague, so that any booking platform or site that takes bookings would potentially be criminally liable for the accuracy of a registration number, even though they don't have the ability to check that number. Speaking on behalf of some of our larger platform members, including my employer, we list thousands of properties across Wales, and it would not be practical to manually check the registration number of each one. Equally, that is not how these systems work in other countries where there are licensing and registration systems.

There are obviously compliance-by-design obligations on platforms, under things like the Online Safety Act 2023 or the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which mean that certain steps have to be taken on an ex-ante basis—there is a duty—but that does not extend to criminal liability if a wrong registration number is listed, and that is a concern that we have with how it's currently drafted.

Okay. The Cabinet Secretary said he finds it reasonable that these booking platforms should be able to check that against a published register of numbers. What would you say to that?

I would say that is an unusual requirement versus other markets. That's not something we see elsewhere. That is contrary to the general practice of how internet services, like accommodation platforms, operate. There are, as I say, other bits of legislation that already create duties and create routes of recourse if there are problems. I would emphasise that the platforms are keen to work with whoever the authority is, potentially the WRA, to do what they can to ensure that registration numbers are accurate. Ultimately, however, we think it should be a responsibility of the visitor accommodation provider to put in an accurate number. Platforms should facilitate them being able to be asked for that number and for that number to appear on the listing, of course, and platforms should respond when they are alerted to an illegal listing, and take that down, but currently the Bill goes too far in this area.

Okay, that's helpful. Glenn, Katherine, anything additional to add to that? It's quite specific for booking platforms. Glenn.

Nothing to add to that.

Nothing to add, thank you.

Fantastic.

Could I just add one quick point?

By all means, Charlie.

Just to put on the record, I know that you had the WRA last week for an evidence session, and I know that they were asked specifically on this point about booking platforms. We have spoken to the WRA since that evidence session because the view that they gave, that it would be really easy for booking platforms to verify both registration numbers and potentially addresses, is not correct. But we have already set up a meeting to discuss how it might work.

Okay, thank you; that's good context. In terms of some of the discussion we've had already around possible unintended consequences for those providers and the impact, potentially, of about a £4.5 million a year compliance cost, what are your organisations thinking about this? Is there a level of nervousness around registration and licences? Is it more nervousness towards just the licences, with the registration being quite welcomed? Could you just give a bit more context? Katherine, I'm not sure if you're content to start on that.

Yes, I can start. Thank you. So, if the intention of the Bill is to restrict trading to providers who can meet an appropriate standard, then hopefully there would not be any significant challenges to them meeting those standards. And if a proportionate approach to enforcement and training, things like that, is met, then it should not, hopefully, be a significant burden. But, again, I'm speaking from a sector that has to go through significant regulatory processes in order to operate already.

Great, thank you, Katherine. Charlie.

Yes, we do think the estimate of £4.5 million is an underestimate. We've already spoken about the licence fee itself, of course. There are a few other specific figures that are in the impact assessment, but one, for instance, is the cost of public liability insurance now becoming a legal requirement. We acknowledge many operators do have it. It's best practice to have public liability insurance, but my understanding is that a typical policy for a holiday let that includes public liability cover would be closer to £500 per property, so potentially double what the estimate is in the impact assessment.

Okay, thank you. Glenn.

I am concerned because it's not sector-wide, the costs are yet to be properly assessed, and the scale of the industry poses those problems. What we saw with 182 days, for example, as a serviced accommodation provider, is that we have had to discount our room inventory off-season as operators subject to that 182 days have looked to fill their bed spaces whilst they can. So, when we talk about unintended consequences, it's not necessarily within the specific field that you're looking at, it's the sector as a whole.

I think that's why it's particularly a missed opportunity, perhaps, that registration and this process are not one. So, in other words, in order to get your registration number, you have to meet the five principal requirements of this Bill, and once you've done that, you get your licence, and that is your unique identifier number that then can be used to layer on any further requirements or, for example, Visit Wales criteria when it comes to standards. Therefore, there is then a consistent message to consumers that, no matter what accommodation, if you come to Wales, it is going to be safe, and those operators know their responsibilities because they have procured this information. So, I think when it comes to unintended consequences, it's vital that the baseline is known with certainty, and how that then responds to different legislation that comes down the line.

Thank you, Glenn. And then finally—. Sorry.

You said £500 for insurance. The Government have said £200. We've touched on licensing at £75, and virtually every witness has said that's almost a laughable figure. As witnesses, do any of the figures in this explanatory memorandum stack up at all, or do you think they've just been plucked out of thin air?

I couldn't comment to that. Sorry, Glenn, you go for it.

I think £75 is a—. We've seen this with the visitor levy. A modest fee is put forward in order to, for example, smooth the passage of the legislation, but the actual effect of the licence is going to go far beyond the level of the fee. I think £75 is incredibly ambitious, and I think that, for example, when it comes to the requirement for public liability insurance, people may well get that. Rogue operators will get that for their licence, and then they can cancel it and only reinstate it just before their new licence, in which case you've raised the expectation of consumers that they're staying in a safe and insured property, but when it comes to it, they may well find that it wasn't insured when the incident happened.

So, I think there is a real risk that if we are procuring a tick-box documentation that it gives a false comfort, and I think that—. It wasn't so long ago, for example, that we were talking about a bag tax at 5p, and we've seen how that has changed consumer behaviour. So, these licence fees, or these extra costs that are layered on, they may well be presented as modest, but is that actually going to be the case? Is that going to be the cost? From what I've seen of the evidence from other witnesses, it seems very ambitious. The nearest analogy is Rent Smart Wales, where the fee is far greater for what appears to be less work, less scrutiny when it comes to documentation.

Okay, thank you. Sam.

Thank you. Sorry, did you want to—? You were just about to come in on the last point.

I was just going to say, I think officials have tried to model a very efficient scheme in good faith, but, to an extent, optimistically. We need to consider that the scheme won't work as efficiently and seamlessly as maybe has been presented. So, we do certainly think the costs are going to be significantly higher.

I would also note that the way this Bill has been drafted, of course, is that it leaves an awful lot open to be added to licence conditions in future. So, that £75 number, or whatever the number is, could very easily increase if additional requirements are added.

Thank you very much. And then finally from me around the training requirements, the Cabinet Secretary's told us that he wanted any training to be proportionate and developed with continued conversation with the industry. What kind of training would be required, Charlie?

We're not sure. This is another area of the Bill where it sets out a power. This is essentially phase 3 of the Government's strategy and approach to short-term lets, so there must be some intention behind it. I think the idea is to ensure that a certain standard of quality is met across the sector. That's a laudable intention from this. I think the vast majority of operators that have been doing this for a number of years will find the idea that they have to attend a three and a half hour training session and pay for the privilege to be annoying at least, and perhaps even a little bit insulting. I think it really does—. It is really on officials and the Government to set out what they feel accommodation providers should be doing. If you're new to the sector, I can see some value, obviously, but there are already reams of industry resources about how to run successful self-catering premises. So, I would ask what the need is for this additional requirement.

Okay, thank you. Katherine.

I suppose, again, speaking from a holiday park perspective, we do have slight concerns regarding sections 40 and 57 to potentially bring holiday parks into scope in the future. And to tie that in regarding your training point, there is already, as Charlie said, a huge amount of training in terms of running a holiday park. I can't speak to the self-catering side of things, unfortunately. Our primary concern, though, is point 1(c) of section 16, which includes the term 'such other connected matters regarding training', which is rather vague, and could mean all sorts of things. So, from our perspective, that's probably the primary concern, and any fees associated with that.

Okay, thank you. Glenn.

In order to get a number with the national registration—and it is perhaps again a missed opportunity—there would need to be a requirement to get those five basic pieces of safety information in place. Beyond that, it's what the nature of the training is for. So, in other words, if you're thinking of going into the sector and you have to get a number for your visitor levy, you're going to be or should be told that you're going to need your fire risk assessment, your gas certificate and those statutory regulation requirements, where applicable. So, that raises the awareness, so that operators are in no doubt as to their responsibilities when it comes to guest safety. So, it raises the question: well, what is the training for? Is it to raise quality standards, in which case this is the Visit Wales area when it comes to grading standards, or is it to really run your self-catering property better? In which case, it seems rather an overreach of what Welsh Government really want to get into, because of the risk of raising consumer expectation that Welsh Government are going to be the people to complain to if things are not up to their standard. And I come back to the point that this is a service of choice, not need, with lots of peer-review situations where, if you're going to book somewhere with your family, you are going to do some research first as to what the standards are like, and those operators who, perhaps, you may say, 'Well, they could do with a bit more training as to how they maintain their property', well, they will soon have to either pull their socks up or they will go out of business. So, I needed to see what the actual training requirement related to.

Thank you, Glenn. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. And finally, Jenny.

Thank you. I just wanted to have a look at the sections about the general fitness standard. Are you content with the wording generally, and what scope, if any, might there be for this to be interpreted differently by visitors and providers? Have any of you got any thoughts on this?

I can begin. The list does read as relevant and clear. However, in terms of interpretation, I think there is a lot of scope for visitor accommodation providers, visitors and potential enforcement bodies, going forward, to be interpreting things slightly differently. And again, it goes back to the point I've raised several times around clarity and guidance.

Okay. So, is there any specific aspect of this that you think is likely to be subject to that—

Not that I'd like to comment on today, but I would be happy to go away and consult with our members and write to the committee afterwards, if that would be helpful.

All right. Because it'd be useful if we need to amend things at Stage 2. That would be useful to know about. Charlie.

Yes, I think I broadly agree with Katherine there, and I'll certainly take away the specific list for comments. Just in terms of how the general fitness standard is applied, I note that the language is that Ministers need to be assured that it's likely these standards will be met. That seems to be an important distinction with the specific fitness standards, because, obviously, not every property needs to be inspected by a building surveyor before they all have a licence, but it allows properties to be held to a certain set of standards. So, we think that is appropriate. We'd welcome guidance setting out exactly what 'likely' means in that instance, but if I've understood it correctly, then that appears to be appropriate. As I say, we can come back on the specific points.

Fine. Okay.

Glenn.

Building on what my fellow witnesses have just said, and illustrating the points about the condition of the property, that again is another area that overlaps with Visit Wales accreditation schemes, and that would be something that should be looked at, for example. So, I'm interested to know how the two things are going to run in parallel, to ensure consistency of standards, and that you don't get mixed messages that somebody operates a four- or a five-star property, but then doesn't appear to meet the fitness to operate test.

I think there's also an opportunity, if there is a properly working and online database when it comes to registration numbers, for local authorities to ensure that appropriate refuse collection mechanisms are put in place for such businesses. I think that's been a previous concern of the committee. So, in other words, if you have a registration number, then you are obviously a business, and if you're a business, then you need to have commercial refuse collection in place. Local authorities would be able to reconcile their database of who's registered for commercial refuse collection alongside that registration number.

So, again, I think it would be interesting to have more clarity or opportunity to really debate and discuss what the fitness to operate contract is trying to achieve over and above, for example, consistent safety standards, rather than encroaching on other areas that might appear to be quality or consumer areas, given the well-reported and well-established peer review society that exists across all platforms, for visitors to ensure that what they're coming to is going to meet their expectations when it comes to the quality of aspiration of the property.

Thank you for raising the issue of rubbish collection, because this is something that residents raise frequently with me and other people, certainly those who represent urban areas, where if a property is left and the rubbish put out on the wrong day, obviously it can cause all sorts of problems with vermin spreading the rubbish all over the street. So, I think you make an important point there, and we perhaps need to consider how we tighten up that particular aspect of it.

I was interested—. Your initial remarks were about how would this list of fitness for visitor accommodation requirements clash with the Visit Wales grading structure. Because we clearly don't want that to— . Clearly, the attempt, presumably, of Visit Wales is to try and point out where a visitor accommodation goes over and above the minimum requirements that we're stating in the Bill. So, I'm unclear as to how it would be possible for somebody to achieve higher standards if they don't meet the minimum requirements.

It depends on the definition of the minimum requirements and the interpretation of those. As far as I could see within the Bill or the explanatory memorandum, they need further interpretation or clarity as to what those are. Then I'm concerned that, for example, you've got two sets of judgments operating within the same landscape. So, for example, carpets could be worn, but they could still be safe. So, is that part of the fitness to operate or is that a quality standard when it comes to whether a property is three, four, or five stars, for example? And how are those two mechanisms going to exist within the same space, particularly when you have only certain accommodation providers within the landscape of this Bill?

But you wouldn't expect the Bill to define anything other than safety in relation to a carpet, would you? I mean, it may be worn, but as long as it's not a hazard, you know, that's—.

Yes, I understand that, and then that builds on to what it is that people will be going in to enforce, when it comes to inspection of those standards.

Okay. Thank you for raising that. We'll obviously give it some consideration.

My second question, really, is around the provisions in section 42 and I think 43 and 44, which is the contractual obligation to ensure premises are fit for visitor accommodation. How clear is it, in your view—shall I start with you, Glenn—in terms of the practical effect? Because supposing previous tenants have done something to the property that has caused it to be not up to the standards that we've just been discussing, that they've damaged the property in some way, where does the obligation lie on the person renting the accommodation to ensure that the repair that needed to be done, and obviously charged to the tenant, has actually been carried out?

I'm interested in the terminology of 'tenant', for example, as opposed to 'guest'.

The guest, then. The guest, sorry. 'Tenant' may be the wrong word here.

A contract raises the expectation of enforcement and guest experience and complaints. So, in your circumstance, who does the visitor or the guest complain to? Yes, there'll be multiple points of contact within that scenario that you describe. Whether Welsh Government want to be a party to that I would very much doubt, in the landscape that exists within this consumer area, which is, as I've previously referred to, very well landscaped when it comes to reputation and reputational analysis. So, I think the Bill is well-intended in this area, but I also think that it leaves it open to be a problem area where consumers are going to have a different expectation of what is the role of Welsh Government or the Ministers within the provision of their visitor accommodation.

Okay, but the point here is not was it not cleaned sufficiently before the new guest comes in, but if the previous guest has done something to make the electricity hazardous, then clearly that is something that the person renting the property would need to ensure that whatever it was had been fixed.

Yes, under those circumstances it would clearly fall to the operator to ensure that. For example, a light fitting that was hanging off the wall would be the responsibility of the operator to either make good prior to the new guest arriving or find alternative appropriate accommodation at that time. So, I think the burden rests with the operator, but I also think operators are already doing that and won't let people stay in, for example, temporarily unsafe conditions without making clear what the problem is, or, for example, that the electrical item is isolated for that period of their stay. I'm not sure if that answers your question.

Are you content with the wording in section 42, then?

Subject to what I've just said, yes.

Yes. Fine. Thank you. Do either of you have any comment on this?

This isn't an area that's been raised by our members in the time available. I can certainly go out and ask them if there are specific comments they have on these sections. From the conversation I've just witnessed, it sounds like that's something that operators are already doing. Certainly, we would expect contracts to say that the property needs to meet the relevant legal standards already, or wording to that effect. But I can come back with any specific concerns that people have on that.

Okay. But, to clarify, I doubt if the Welsh Government wants to get involved in a property that has not been properly cleaned; what they will want to get involved in is where a property is unsafe because of actions taken by a previous occupant.

And that seems broadly reasonable, yes.

Okay, Jenny?

Yes, thank you.

Okay. Thank you all very much for your evidence this afternoon. It's greatly appreciated and will inform the committee's view on this legislation, and our report will be published in January. The Record of Proceedings will be sent to you all for you to have a look at. If you have any concerns about that record, please liaise with the clerking team, but otherwise that'll be the official record of the evidence that you have given to inform the report that will be, as I said, published in January. Thank you very much.

I call on committee members to note the papers to note. Any observations or questions on those? No.

Could I move a motion to move into private session? Okay. We'll now move into private session.