Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee

I thank you, again, for your written evidence, and we now look forward to receiving your oral evidence. I'll first of all, for the record, ask you to introduce yourselves and the organisation that you represent. I'll start with you, Fiona, first, if I may, and then work down the panel, and then we'll go into questions. Thank you. Fiona.

Bore da. I'm Fiona MacConnacher, head of public affairs for the UK and Ireland at Booking.com.

Thank you for the invitation to be here. My name's Carl Thomson, and I'm the UK public policy manager for Airbnb.

Bore da. My name's Barbara Griffiths. I'm from North Wales Holiday Cottages, and I represent self-catering agencies with the Wales Tourism Alliance.

Thank you. Are you in agreement with the general principles of the legislation that we're discussing today? Fiona, I'll ask you first.

Yes. I think, first, I want to say that we do support proportionate regulation, and I think the purpose of the Bill in terms of health and safety is a legitimate one, but we do not support the speed at which the Bill is going through, and I think lots of the Bill, as we will go into in more detail throughout the session, needs a little more thought. So, we look forward to discussing that more throughout this session. Thank you.

Thank you. Carl.

We support the principle that self-catering accommodation should be safe and legal, but we don't support the principles of the Bill in the sense that our experience of short-term lets regulation around the world is that licensing regimes don't solve the problems that they're intended to fix.

Within the context of Wales, licensing for the purpose of ensuring health and safety is a blunt and unnecessary tool that's disproportionate to any risks that might be faced by guests. In our view, there's no evidence that a licensing regime is needed in Wales, or that it will do anything other than cause immense harm to local accommodation providers, reduce consumer choice and push up costs for guests.

Thank you. Barbara.

Yes, I've always totally supported the idea of registration, together with proof of safe and legal requirements. This Bill I feel is—. I support it in principle, but it's rushed and there are a lot of problems within the Bill, which I think will show up later as we go through.

Carl, in your comment, you said that licensing doesn't—I think you said—solve the problems that it sets out to solve. Can you give us an example of where licensing has come in and hasn't solved the problems that were identified that gave rise to putting the legislation forward in the first place?

I think the first part of that is to understand what is the reason why licensing is introduced. One of the challenges that we saw in Scotland, where licensing was introduced in 2023, is that there were very different reasons given for the introduction of that licensing scheme. Initially, it was introduced for the purpose of regulating health and safety, but then it also became a mechanism to look at other issues, like housing supply and housing availability.

What we're told by the Welsh Government is that the purpose of this legislation is to promote safety standards. And of course, safety matters, but it's important to remember that problems are exceptionally rare. Our data at Airbnb tells us that accommodation in Wales actually has a much stronger safety record compared to other parts of the UK and internationally. And if I could just give an example of that, if you look at the hundreds of thousands of—almost a million—inbound trips that were booked to Wales on our platform between January 2024 and September 2025, only 39 reported any kind of safety issue. That's 0.004 per cent. And when you break that figure down, none of these incidents related to carbon monoxide, none of them related to fire safety, none of them related to electrical safety, and there was only one single reported gas incident.

So, that brings us back to my argument that, if the purpose of this legislation is to ensure the health and safety and quality of the sector, there are real questions about whether it's necessary or whether it's needed or whether these very manageable risks can't be addressed through other mechanisms.

Thank you. Fiona and Barbara—I'll start with you, Fiona, if I may—you both raised the point that this feels rushed, and timing seems to be of the essence. That's the political timing, obviously, because we've got the election in May. From your perspective, that condensed timeline, how has that affected your ability to influence and consult your organisations and your members on the effects of this licensing legislation, should it be enacted?

Yes. So, we provided written evidence at the beginning of the week. I think we had two or three weeks in which to collate that information. We've been very much involved in sessions on giving more evidence to Welsh Government on the self-catering sector over many years. I know that I was in north Wales a couple of years ago on one of the roadshow events that were taking place there. So, I think there's been plenty of opportunity in which we've been able to give evidence on the sector, but, on the Bill itself, this has been very rushed; we've had those three weeks. I know that we've already met with Welsh Government officials. I know that Carl was in that meeting. Charlie Reith, who gave evidence last week, who is part of Expedia Group, has been in those meetings as well. I'm sure we'll get on to those points later, but there are various points within the Bill itself that we've had issue with—there was no ability to have those adjusted or anything before it then reached the Senedd.

So, I think very genuine concerns within the drafting of the Bill have already been raised, but there then hasn't been that ability to make any amendments before it then reaches the Senedd, which I think shows the kind of speed here. Now obviously, we can understand that there is a timeline, with elections happening next May, but I think we would say act with a little more caution to make sure there are no unintended consequences within the Bill. This is, ultimately, affecting businesses; this is, ultimately, affecting Welsh businesses. I know that we'll probably be going about these figures throughout our session, but two thirds of self-catering operators live within 10 miles of their property; half of them live next door. We're talking about Welsh businesses here, and if we affect those businesses, we don't just affect the self-catering businesses, we affect the restaurants, the pubs, the shops. All of those different activities could have a negative impact with the unintended consequences of the Bill. I know also that you had Fiona Campbell and Marc Crothall from Scotland come to give evidence, and they told you of their experience of unintended consequences.

I think in order to create a Bill that works for everyone, that works for Welsh tourism, it needs a little more time, and I think—. Is it 39 days in the calendar for it to actually go through the Senedd? That is a very fast piece of legislation, considering it's not for an emergency purpose. Thank you.

Thank you, that's helpful. Barbara.

Basically, I agree. We've had less than three weeks in order to look at this particular Bill. Yes, we've had consultation in the past about registration, the levy and licensing, but now we've got the actual Bill in front of us, we've had less than three weeks to look at it, and there is a lot that's missing. Welsh Government officials themselves have admitted in meetings that part of the reason why there's so much secondary legislation is because they haven't had time to actually sort out the details themselves. So, it is rushed, and I feel it should be delayed.

Could I just question you on that, Barbara? Officials have actually told you that they have not had the time to sort out the details on this, hence that's why—.

When we've queried why is it only self-catering that is included in this, self-contained self-catering, we were told it was too complicated within the timescale to add the other sectors that come under registration.

Thank you, that's helpful. Just before I bring you in, Carl, I saw you nod in an agreement with that point, Fiona, that you would have heard the same remarks from officials as well that Barbara had heard.

I believe we have done, yes.

Thank you. Carl.

I think Fiona's points about the timing of the Bill as it goes through its Senedd process are well made, and we share those concerns. If I could make one point that I think builds on what Barbara said about the length of time that we've had to consider the Bill and the implications that it has, from the perspective of online platforms, there are significant issues with the fact that, as currently worded in the Bill, booking intermediaries will be legally liable for the accuracy of a registration number that's inputted by accommodation providers. I know we will potentially come on to that topic in more detail a little later in this session, but that approach is inconsistent with established practice elsewhere in the UK and around the world. There are real technical problems with how that could work in practice, and we actually don't recognise the comments that were made by the Welsh Revenue Authority to this committee on 5 November as an accurate reflection of their conversations with us or the view they expressed that solutions to this are relatively easy.

Now, all of this could have been explained to the Welsh Government had they consulted or had a conversation with the platforms beforehand and before publishing the Bill, but they didn't do that. The first we learned about this aspect of the legislation, and the way they envisaged the role of platforms when it comes to enforcement, was upon publication of the text and a conversation with them afterwards. When we raised this point, the advice that we received from officials was, 'Well, it's too late to change the drafting, so take it to the Senedd.'

I think there are real complex, technical details in the Bill that need to be worked out that haven't really been thought through, and the very short space of time that we have for parliamentary scrutiny and until this Bill receives Royal Assent is a cause of concern for us.

Thank you, that's helpful. I just feel obliged, as Chair of the committee, to indicate that the timeline is not the Senedd's timeline for introduction of this Bill, it's the Government's. The condensed timeline is, obviously, what the Government wished to achieve to get this on the statute book before the election. We as a committee are doing our best with the timeline that we've been given by our Business Committee, and I think that's important for people to understand, to scrutinise aspects of it. But the evidence you just gave and the response of officials within the Welsh Government I think will cause some serious concern amongst individuals. Luke.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. If I could look towards the explanatory memorandum to start with, part of the narrative that we've received over the course of our evidence gathering has been that the point of the Bill is to ensure a level playing field, to put it simply. So, if I actually read out what some of the explanatory memorandum says, it says that the whole point of it is to ensure that

'those operators providing accommodation which already meets the required statutory requirements do not continue to be put at a commercial disadvantage by competitors who'

do not meet those current statutory requirements. So, what would the panel's view be on that, as a starter?

Carl.

I'll defer to Barbara and then I'm happy to come in.

Okay. No, it doesn't produce a level playing field, because it's only covering self-contained self-catering, and to achieve a level playing field, we need to cover all sections who are providing accommodation and make sure that they are equally as safe and legal as self-catering. I think that's the main point, but Carl and Fiona will probably add to it.

Yes. I think that's an example of an assertion that's made in the explanatory memorandum as a justification for the Bill, but with no real evidential basis. So, the memorandum says that there's anecdotal evidence that some short-term lets aren't fulfilling their compliance obligations, but anecdote is a poor foundation on which to build the case for licensing. The economics of it don't make sense. There's not much in the way of price advantage that a rogue accommodation provider could gain by not having the necessary certification.

I can reiterate on that point that the quality of accommodation in Wales is already very high. The average guest satisfaction rating for a stay in Wales is 4.9 stars out of five—that's one of the highest in the country. And our review mechanism also helps to filter out bad actors and non-compliant properties. If a host or accommodation provider was to list a sub-standard or unsafe property, that would be picked up extremely quickly by guests. Negative reviews would put them at a disadvantage and would see them removed from the platform. So, if there's any data or research that says there's a competitiveness or market distortion that's caused by non-compliant accommodation providers, I think it could be presented to the committee so that they can assess that.

Fiona.

Yes, I would agree with what Carl has mentioned there, particularly when it comes to the quality of accommodation. Guests are very quick to make reviews and to highlight accommodation that doesn't meet certain standards. The market sorts that out for itself. I also agree, then, with Barbara's points as well.

I think when it comes to the point on health and safety, I would argue that there is the ability of Welsh Government to put all of the requirements required of self-catering properties on their own website now. It's something that could be done today to make sure that people are compliant, and I think at the moment—this is something that we have conversations with Government in Westminster on on their own registration scheme—it's very difficult to find out what you need to be compliant.

Now, the majority of operators are compliant. They're running a business, they have been so doing for many years. This isn't a new business for many people, but for those people who are new to the sector, they might not be aware of the requirements required of them, so put that information out there for them to be able to do this. I think that that will be incredibly helpful, particularly for people who might be operating on a more amateur basis, for a few nights a year, that might help when there are large events such as Taylor Swift coming to Cardiff, for example—they might want to put their property on. I think that that would be helpful.

I do agree with Barbara's points there, though, on the self-contained accommodation section. I think, within the self-contained aspect, again, we don't really have the data, so it's quite difficult for us, any of us in this room, to say for certain on that. But on the self-contained sector, many of these people will be already abiding by regulation, but it's those, perhaps, on a more amateur basis or with single rooms within properties that we would say would then need to be pointed in the direction of what they need to abide by in terms of health and safety regulation.

But, yes, I think the market ultimately kind of protects itself. People can go into a property—if it doesn't meet their standards, they can walk out and say that they want a refund, and that they don't want to stay there. So, yes, I think it's an interesting point within the explanatory memorandum, but I think that data is needed to suggest why that is the belief.

I know you want to come in, Barbara, but if I can just come back for a moment on the points that you make around reviews being left on properties—I take the point entirely that if people have had a bad experience at an accommodation, then the reviews will reflect that and people will make an informed decision on whether or not they go to stay at that property. The Government would argue, I think, though, that what they're trying to achieve here is to pick up those things that wouldn't necessarily be noticed by a guest. So, as a guest, if you go into an accommodation, say the shower head is broken or there's something physically wrong with the property, the guest would be able to pick that up, but they wouldn't know whether the right investigations have happened in the background or that the right licences are in place by that accommodation provider. So, is that fair, in terms of the Government making sure that that is in place across the board?

If I may come in, I think it is very fair to make sure that people are abiding by the relevant legislation that they should already be abiding by. But I think that there are, potentially, other ways in which you can look at that, potentially through the registration scheme. I think that the registration scheme is something that—. I know that at Booking.com we very much support that—whether this is something that you could do via the registration scheme, for example.

But I think that when it comes to that health and safety aspect, obviously, it is quite difficult, but for many operators, they need all of these things in place in order to be able to operate legally anywhere. If you don't have these things in place, if there's an insurance claim, whatever, you wouldn't be covered—your mortgage wouldn't be covered, say, if you have a mortgage—so you need all of these things in place in order to operate legally anyway. But, yes, there perhaps are other mechanisms that you could look at to see that people are complying.

I know that Carl mentioned in opening those other ways in which you might be able to achieve the same objective. You've mentioned there, Fiona, the registration scheme itself. What other ways would the Government be able to achieve what they're looking to do? Is it just the registration scheme or are there other mechanisms? I'll come to Carl, because I know Carl said that right at the start, and I'm still conscious that Barbara wants to come in, so we’ll go to Carl first, please.

Yes, I think the point is that the registration scheme will allow the Welsh Government to achieve pretty much all of the things that it is trying to do with this Bill. It actually makes no sense to introduce licensing just now, while the register is still in development. Registration will provide local authorities and enforcement bodies with data on the number, type and concentration of short-term lets. It will provide local authorities and enforcement bodies with where the short-term lets are and who's operating them. It will allow hosts and accommodation providers to be signposted to information about their health and safety obligations and to attest that they understand and follow them. And data from the scheme can be used by councils when investigating complaints. All of that can be achieved without the cost and friction that licensing entails, and without bringing in a bureaucratic framework that's going to act as a powerful disincentive for those who are keen to make an economic and social contribution to Welsh tourism.

Barbara.

I just wanted to point out that for any operator working through an agency, our policies already require our owners to produce this information. So, for a vast number of self-catering properties, they will very easily be able to produce the information that says that they are safe and legal—the gas, the electrical, the fire regulations and the insurance. It's about those beyond that. If I'm coming to a Taylor Swift concert in Cardiff and book someone's single room, I would like to know that that whole house is safe, and there is no way of me knowing whether they have a gas safety certificate or whether they have looked at the fire regulations.

The fire regulations already cover a single room let for a single night, but I would be fairly certain that there are a lot of properties that let out a single room for a few nights a year that do not have, for example, a smoke alarm in every single room or a carbon monoxide detector. I think that it could have been done along with registration; unfortunately, it wasn't. But I do feel that the licensing needs to cover all of those sorts of people as well at the same time.

Carl.

Could I express a rare moment of disagreement with Barbara? Our view is you don't need a licensing scheme at all, but if you are going to have one, it makes sense that spare rooms are not included within scope. There are a number of reasons for that.

I think, first of all, the guest experience of staying in a spare room is very different to the experience of staying in traditional self-contained self-catering accommodation, and people will choose that type of accommodation because that's the experience that they want. When you look at the risk profile, it's far less likely to have health and safety risks associated with spare rooms, because these are already properties that people are living in, on a residential basis, full-time. There's international precedent for excluding spare rooms from short-term lets regulations. France does it, Ireland does it. It's even something that the UK Government is trying to incentivise through the Rent a Room scheme. It's in line with the European Union's short-term rental regulations. So, we would say: don't have the licensing scheme. Everything that you want to achieve you can do through registration, and that will cover spare rooms. But if you are going to go down the route of licensing, it makes sense to focus it on the dedicated self-catering professional accommodation units.

I'm conscious of time here, and I know other Members want to come in, but if I could just ask one final set of questions specifically around cumulative impact of policies around tourism. The sector has been pretty clear that they've had a number of different requirements put on them over the last couple of years. Do you feel that, at least within this Bill, that has been considered by the Government?

I can go first. The cumulative impact point I think is a very powerful one. When we speak to our host community, they tell us that there have been a lot of regulatory interventions in the last few years. There are a lot of new rules and requirements that they have to follow, and Welsh Government policies and UK Government policies are acting as a disincentive to operate self-catering accommodation.

So, if you look at what we've seen just in the past few years, in Wales there will be the need to register, there will be the need to collect and remit the visitor levy, there is the council tax premiums on second homes, including second homes that are used as holiday accommodation, there is a much higher threshold for business rates, which is causing operators real difficulty. In areas where an article 4 direction is introduced, there will be planning requirements. If you then look at UK policy, we've seen the abolition of the furnished holiday let tax relief scheme, there are potential new minimum energy efficiency standards that will have to be met. And all of these things are coming in, they're being brought in in very close proximity to one another, without any time really being taken to understand what is the impact of that on the health of the sector, and how does all of that feed through with the potential to make Wales a more expensive and thus less competitive and attractive destination for visitors.

Fiona.

I agree with Carl there; I just want to add a couple more points. When we look at operators, the majority of operators are over 50, the majority of operators are also female. We're also talking about microbusinesses. These are not large corporate machines that are trying to understand how to do a new piece of legislation, these are individuals trying to make sense of what they need to do in order to operate legally, and I think that this cumulative impact piece, with all the points that Carl mentioned there, is really important. These are ordinary people trying to understand things that, admittedly, people around this room talk about every day. Carl and I, this is our job, we talk about policy all the time, but many of these people are not dealing with legislation all the time. And I think with lots of this—and I know that this has happened in Scotland—whilst messaging does need to be really clear, guidance needs to be incredibly clear for businesses so they know what they're doing, and that is something that we will definitely push for. But also there can be a lot of misinformation that goes around. We've got the registration scheme coming up, people are obviously hearing about that; now they're hearing about licensing. There's all of this pressure on operators, and, rightly or wrongly, they might feel as if they are not welcome to run their business, and so they might feel as if they want to leave the sector— run before it might become a problem. And that might not necessarily be based on evidence or on the actual reality of what licensing might mean for them, but ultimately it is creating fear within the sector.

I totally agree with everything that has been said.

Thank you. Alun.

I'm one of your customers.

Good.

Very quickly, which one? [Laughter.]

All three of you, as it happens, at different times. And I like this, as a customer. I recognise what you say as operators. But sometimes you look at it from the other direction, as somebody who is looking towards booking accommodation. I've just booked somewhere on Booking.com. I use Airbnb every so often. When I'm at home, I find a more local agency sometimes. And I like it. I feel that this gives me a baseline level of certainty for myself, if, for example, I'm taking one of the children, particularly. And so for me, as a customer, when I saw this, I thought, ‘Actually, this is good.’ So, are you perhaps looking at this too much from your own point of view and not simply the point of view of those of us who actually create your profits?

I think in principle I would agree with you. Our guests expect whatever they booked to be safe and legal. But I think this Bill is rushing into creating that and is not sorting it out properly.

I'd agree with Barbara. Ultimately, to list on Booking.com—

That's a different issue. Rushing it I can accept. I’ve got some sympathy with that, as it happens. I've spent enough time here preaching to Ministers about the way in which we legislate. I accept that. But my point is a slightly different one, of course, which is a point of principle about ensuring that you have these safeguards in place for people who are booking your accommodation.

I think customers are obviously incredibly important, because we wouldn't be a business without them. But equally, we wouldn't be a business without the operators that choose to list with us. Now, I think that if you do choose to list with us, you are confirming when you list with us that you abide by all local laws and regulations. If you are found to be in breach of that, you are removed from our site.

I agree with you as well that, actually, consumers do want that confidence that they are staying in a property that's safe. Many people assume that that's the case when they go and stay somewhere. And so we already have mechanisms in place—I'm sure Carl can say the same for Airbnb, and I'll let him speak to that—we have a portal in which local authorities can make us aware of properties, and we swiftly then remove those properties. We equally have third parties—

Again, that's a different issue, isn't it?

It is a different issue, but I think that when it comes to safety, there are certain things that we already have in place in order to remove listings. I do agree that, ultimately, having legislation in place to make sure that people are operating safe and legally is important. There's already regulation in terms of fire safety, gas safety et cetera, and it is already in place to ensure that that is the case. This is bringing it, perhaps, into one piece of legislation. But I think the timing point is incredibly important. We need to make sure that that is then fit for purpose to protect the existing operators that you will then stay with.

I accept that point.

It's a very important question, and you're right to stress its importance. And that's why it's essential that we get it right, because only by getting it right can we do the right thing for guests and for those individuals, those small and microbusinesses, who have been running high-quality, self-catering accommodation in Wales for years. If there’s a problem with health and safety in Wales to the extent that it requires legislation for a new licensing scheme, let's have that evidence, let's have that data, let's see the irrefutable facts, and let's move forward on the basis of those facts.

The challenge is that tourism in Wales has already seen such a large number of bureaucratic interventions in recent years, and there's real potential for this to make Wales an outlier, not only in terms of being overly regulated, but harming its attractiveness and competitiveness. It would be far better to pause this Bill, get the accommodation register up and running, then we will have the facts, then we will have the data. We will see how all recent changes have landed and have affected accommodation providers, and then let's only do anything further on the basis of the evidence.

But, of course, many of the interventions that you've described, or some of the interventions you've described, are also seeking to find a balance between the impact of tourism and the host communities. Now, I know in parts of Wales I've represented in the past, the most tourism-intensive parts of Wales in, say, Llŷn, Meirionnydd or Aberystwyth and places, tourism is a positive, it's a good thing for employment. But in many community areas, it's also part of the reason that people can't afford to live there, and people are being pushed out.

We've seen protests in many parts of Europe recently about the negative impacts of tourism in different places. The Government is also responding to what the people are saying in the host communities—you know, we've won elections to be here—they're saying, 'Actually, yes, we do welcome tourism and the rest of it.' I spent 20 years living in Aberystwyth and tourism was a positive there, because it did mean that you had services and facilities that you wouldn't necessarily have without it. But also there was this pressure on infrastructure. And some of the areas where Welsh Government has been contested here in terms of, say, the levy—. I pay it in most parts of the world and I'm not at all bothered by it. It's my contribution to areas.

I can see you're all wanting to come back. I just want to make the case that your characterisation, Carl, although fair and reasonable from your point of view, is not necessarily the view of either those of us who use your services or, secondly, those of us who live in host communities that host the visitors that you find accommodation for. Now, come on, you can tell me what you think of it.

Look, these are not new questions. These are things we hear quite frequently. I said at the start that our experience is that when licensing frameworks are introduced, they don't achieve the goals that they are intended to reach. And, actually, housing is part of that. I think it's important to say, first of all, that the housing impacts of short-term lets are often very overstated. If you look at the number of properties that are listed on Airbnb, that represents only 0.7 per cent of UK housing stock. You drill down into that a little bit more, you see that those that are let for 90 nights or more are only 0.17 per cent of housing stock. So, we're talking about very, very minimal impacts on housing.

I think the issue I would have with what you're saying is that what seems to be happening is we are changing the rationale for the licensing scheme, which was supposed to be for health and safety. Now, we're talking about housing. It almost looks as if we're trying to land on—

I think I was replying to the point that you made, actually, about the context. I think you talked about a number of bureaucratic interventions in the previous—. And I think I was responding to that, rather than simply talking about this Bill, because you introduced the contextual stuff.

Sure, that's fair, but I guess I'd conclude it by saying that that's why it's important to understand why we are introducing this and, if we are going to introduce it, to make sure that the evidence is there to support it.

And I believe the Cabinet Secretary said that to this very committee, that it's on health and safety.

Yes, he did.

—and so I think, ultimately, we need to be looking at this Bill with that purpose. And I think, within the explanatory memorandum, it also said that there would be negligible people that would leave the industry. I think that that is something that is up for debate, but I think if those are the beliefs of the Welsh Government, that it will have a negligible impact, then I think that that should also be noted. This isn't on housing. We've been told that this is on health and safety.

Yes, I agree.

You see, I suspect that this will actually have a positive impact, because if you can position Wales as a country that has positive quality offers, then that will, I think, be more attractive than simply saying, 'Pile it high, sell it cheap.'

If I might just quickly come in on that, I do agree that people will, obviously, be attracted to that. However, there is the issue of additional costs then going on to businesses, and I'm sure we'll probably shortly be coming on to the cost of licences. With the cost of licensing, the cost of registration, the other costs that are required in order to abide by the legislation and regulations that are coming in, or that are already, indeed, required of operators, you're adding in additional costs, and those costs, ultimately, go back to you, the consumer, when you're going to stay there.

People are incredibly price conscious, and, ultimately, if you see the price go up in Wales, which might also happen with the levy—although we're not here to discuss that today—you will then see people not choose Wales. People are very price conscious. Domestic tourism, people find that it's cheaper to go and stay in Spain than it is in many parts of the UK. People also want to find value for money. They're strained in many areas of their life with the cost-of-living crisis, if they then find those additional costs, which, ultimately, go back to the consumer when it comes to licensing, when it comes to registration, et cetera, then people will choose to stay elsewhere. We've found this—. I cover Ireland as well in my role. The amount of available accommodation was reduced when migrants were being housed in hotels. Prices went up and tourism inevitably went down. So, there is always that correlation with price, and people are incredibly price sensitive.

Can I just make the point that this Bill primarily is to introduce safe and legal, rather than quality aspects? Because quality is very subjective, and is down to the consumer, and the consumer will respond with bad reviews, and that sort of thing. The main thing we need to achieve in this is to get every accommodation provider safe and legal, and to prove it.

But I would regard quality as that, as the base of quality—

Yes, but that's consumer choice, and they will make their choice on the information they are given when they book.

As a consumer, I would want to know that everywhere I choose is going to be safe—meets the basic standards. Then, I'll make my choice within that context. That's why I think, from a consumer point of view, I very much welcome this. I'm the person who's going to be booking your accommodation. I have to say, I think it's good to know that you've got that foundation upon which you will then choose. Yes, sometimes price comes into it; other times, you'd want to go for something of a different quality.

But in terms of where we are now, and the licensing, you've all said you've got no issue, essentially, with registration; it's the licensing areas that you really have a problem with. So, would you have any suggestions, for example, on how you would amend the current Bill to improve, possibly, the licensing regime that it introduces? Or would you just say, 'Get rid of it'?

I think there are two things that you need to look at if you are going to go ahead with this. For us, the most important is the change of policy from 2023, which initially set out a licensing framework that was 'apply and go'. You'd upload your documentation, you'd pay your fee online, you'd get your licence number instantly, and then those documents were on file if local authorities or enforcement bodies wanted to conduct investigations or respond to complaints. What's happened since then is we've moved to an 'apply and wait' model of licensing. That's very problematic, because it creates great delays and great uncertainty for accommodation providers, if they are able to continue operating. It creates a lot of friction within the system. There will be a lot of accommodation providers who will look at that and think that that's just too difficult, it's just too complex; it's a psychological barrier to continuing to operate. When you then add in the point about licence renewal needing to be annual, that, again, is a big problem and something that we would like to see addressed. Most—

So, how would you like to see it addressed? Sorry.

So, most accommodation providers take bookings up to or over a year in advance. When annual renewals are a requirement of a licensing scheme, you often see the accommodation provider having a moment of uncertainty because they don't know if they can honour future bookings. And when jurisdictions have introduced an annual licence requirement, in most cases they subsequently extend it to three years. I think we would say that three to five years is a more realistic time frame. That gives a certainty that businesses can continue to operate.

The health and safety profile of self-catering accommodation is unlikely to change within a 12-month period. If people are doing something and showing certain behaviours when running an accommodation business, they're unlikely to stop doing that within a 12-month period. So, we would suggest that, first of all, the licensing approval model moves from 'apply and wait' to 'apply and go'. And secondly, that you extend the validity of licences. Edinburgh, by the way, had a one-year licence period. For the reasons I've outlined, they recently extended that to three years.

Thank you. Jenny.

Good morning. I want to look at why this Bill is necessary in the context of why we need to have the powers to intervene when somebody is not compliant with their registration, because it seems to me that that is key. Because I notice, Carl, that Airbnb is arguing that we need to wait for the registration process. But as I represent an urban constituency in the middle of Cardiff, I don't need registration to know who are the renters who are causing massive problems to my constituents, around noise and failure to manage litter. Those are the big ones. It's a very different sort of tourism to the one that I'm sure Barbara Griffiths's members are operating. That's really why I want to explore the specifics of the Bill around sections 46 and 47 in particular.

Because, as you may have heard the Cabinet Secretary explain, the proposal is to have intelligence-led enforcement, where we use all manner of data that's widely available, such as adverse comments about a visitor experience, to target those who are not the single-use person who lives next door, et cetera. So, that is a problem I've experienced in a city in England, and that, I think, is probably the main focus. So, I just wondered, under those circumstances, you, Fiona, argue that we should amend 46 to delete large parts of it, but I'm keen to explore how we get the registration system and the licence system to be joined up, so that we have the powers to intervene where they're not obeying the law and they're causing a hell of a lot of aggravation for citizens who live nearby.

Yes, if I might come in on section 46, we've provided it in our written evidence, I alluded to it at the beginning of the session, and Carl has mentioned it during this session as well. Within that section, it looks at the display of registration numbers. We would argue—and we have done in our written evidence, and I will say again now—that we do not agree with this approach. Ultimately, we are reliant on the information that operators give us in terms of numbers, and therefore, as that is the case, we don't currently have the ability to validate numbers as they come through.

I understand that. 'Currently' is the important word. If we had a system like the ability of any citizen to check up whether a vehicle that's blocking the disabled access actually has a valid licence, any citizen can do that. It won't tell you the name or the address of that registered vehicle owner, but it will tell you whether it's licensed or not, and it gives you added information when you call the police.

And we will be displaying registration numbers across our platform. Already we're working together with the Welsh Revenue Authority in order for them to understand what we can and cannot do. I'm not certain whether we've discussed it yet, but there was evidence given by the Welsh Revenue Authority on the point of what we can and cannot do as platforms. I think Carl was possibly going to come in on this point, but I'll try and say it, and, Carl, please correct me if I'm incorrect in how I describe it. But, ultimately, within that evidence, it was incorrect how they said what we could do. We haven't had those conversations with the Welsh Revenue Authority. We very much want to have them, and we want to get our technical teams there to discuss what we can and cannot do. Now, also, I think—

Can I ask you—? Because I think that Charlie, last week, indicated that they had had a discussion with the revenue authority, based on the evidence session the week before, and they were actually engaged on that point.

So, we are actively engaged on it. When that evidence was made, we had not had those discussions.

Oh, right. Thank you.

I think it's also worth noting—and, as Booking.com, I think this is one of key importance—that we're talking about registration numbers here for all accommodation types, not just self-catering, if I'm correct in my understanding. This is a massive burden, to make sure that those numbers are correct. We are reliant on that information being provided to us as correct. It could be that it's incorrectly inputted. It could be a genuine error. But we can definitely talk with the Welsh Revenue Authority as to what we can and cannot do. We already have ways in which we can make sure that the format is correct, and all of these things. These are all technical details, but we are very much wanting to talk about that. But, ultimately, we do not believe that the liability should then be on the platforms for those numbers to be correct. Ultimately, we will display them, and consumers then have the ability to go and check that information, if that's what they want to do. But we will definitely be speaking, and we are currently organising further discussions on this with the Welsh Revenue Authority.

Okay. Carl Thomson.

Thanks. There were two parts to your question, and I'll answer both of them. The first is: you want an answer to how we can ensure that when there are incidents of noise, nuisance, anti-social behaviour—

And, briefly, tax evasion as well.

I'm sure we can come on to that, but on this specific point around the community impact of short-term lets, the good news is that the registration scheme will be a massive assistance in addressing those issues. If I can give an—

Up to a point. It won't—

If I could perhaps—

It won't in and of itself, but I agree it helps.

If I could give an example. Sometimes, we at Airbnb get contacted by a local authority, and they say, 'There's a disturbance from this short-term let. We need to contact the owner. We need to take enforcement action. Can you tell us who's operating it?' And notwithstanding privacy obligations, we often go onto our platform and we look it up, and we find that that property isn't listed as an Airbnb. It might be listed on one of the other platforms; I'm sure the other platforms often have the same thing. Now, under the registration scheme, the local authority will have what it doesn't have right now, which is a single source of information to find out where a property is, what type of accommodation is being run there, and, most importantly, who's running it and the contact details. Our experience tells us that that's going to strip out a lot of time and resource effort that local authority enforcement and planning departments currently struggle with. So, I think registration is absolutely going to assist you with those issues.

I think, from our perspective, there is the more significant concern that we do have, which is this point that Fiona has explained really well, about the intermediary liability aspect of the legislation. Online platforms do not have the ability to determine whether a registration number that's been inputted by a third party is valid or not. And we strongly disagree with the suggestion that criminal liability should be placed on platforms, and on the senior officers of those companies, for actions that they've not participated in, over which they have no control, and of which they're unaware. This degree of intermediary liability is completely out of keeping with established practice in other jurisdictions that have introduced short-term lets. It is not something we see in the Scottish licensing rules. It's something that was rejected for the registration scheme in England. It's not part of the EU short-term rentals rules. It's actually something that Welsh Government officials told us they had rejected for the Welsh registration system, for those reasons.

Okay. So, is—

If I could finish my point, please. It clashes with very well-established legal concepts around intermediary liability, which is that platforms should only be responsible for illegal content once it has been drawn to their attention and they have been notified and can take action against it. Those protections are—I can't stress this enough—those protections are really fundamental to the effective functioning of digital businesses.

Now, I understand the committee has been told that the register will be public and, as you are suggesting, platforms should check whether the number in a listing matches the licence details of the registration scheme. But the resource and technical implications of that are hugely significant, very disproportionate and costly, especially for smaller platforms. I could take you down a technical rabbit hole as to why that is. I'm happy to write to the committee with much more detail on that point. But we believe all of these problems can be rectified by amending the Bill to ensure that liability rests with the visitor accommodation provider, because they are the ones with knowledge of the status of the property, they are the ones who have control of the premises, and they are the ones who are inputting the registration number. Now, there are things that we can do to help. We want to help. As Fiona suggested in her remarks, platforms can require that all in-scope listings display a registration number in their profile, and we can ensure that inputted registration numbers have to follow a set format. Our experience is that that creates a very high barrier to fraud, it's something that Airbnb can commit to, but that should be the limit of platform liability.

Okay. It would probably be useful to have a note of the technical details, but we don't want to go into it here. But you can see that what we're trying to do, which is very difficult, is to ensure that the fly-by-night tax evaders aren't 'by mistake' putting one digit wrong in the licence in order to evade detection when this property is used for people occupying it who just cause mayhem. So, do you accept that if it was as easy as looking up the licence of a vehicle to ensure that the person who wants to advertise with you had put in the correct registration, that would then be satisfactory?

I can answer, but, Fiona, I don't know if you wanted to come in first.

I just wanted to make a point there on the tax evasion that you're mentioning here. I don't believe that that is within the Bill, but platforms—

No, it isn't, no. It isn't.

Platforms do already have an obligation that came in at the beginning of last year, I believe. Carl might be able to speak to this as well. We have to provide information on income from businesses on our platforms. There's already existing legislation from Westminster on obligations on tax, which we can provide evidence on.

Thank you for that.

On that question, I think it's important to understand that establishing and operating and marketing a short-term let is a very difficult and onerous thing to do, and the people who do it are very committed to it. These are serious people, working very hard, running proper, respectable businesses. And so the idea that someone would go to the effort of decorating a property, marketing it on a platform, taking the nice photographs, setting up the relevant structures to be able to do it, managing multiple check-ins and cleanings per week, and then at the last moment cut a corner by, as you're suggesting, evading responsibility by changing a number in a registration number—. I think it comes down to this question of: what is the balance and proportionality of the risks that you're looking to manage? Now, the solution that I described about that we can ensure that registration numbers have to be in a specific format—our experience is that that works extremely well in blocking that kind of activity. Again, you invited me to write to you with some more technical details; I can absolutely include that point in my follow-up communication to you.

Okay, thank you. But you—

If you could do that, because time is beating us, sadly.

Okay, all right. Just the last point, really, is—. Because what we're trying to do here is ensure—. I understand that both of you have reputations to defend, but, if another operator comes along who wants to cut corners, the legislation has to ensure that they are as compliant as you are with all the things you've been speaking about. That's the challenge, and therefore we have to see how we can make this have teeth, because everything to do with online is much more difficult than just, you know, walking to see, or knocking on the door of Barbara. That's part of the problem.

If I might just very quickly come in here, Carl and I are talking from very large organisations here on the issues that we have. These issues will equally affect people like Barbara. They will affect smaller platforms. If you then put the liability on the visitor accommodation provider—. They're the ones that should be following these rules, they're the ones that should be inputting the right information, they're the ones, ultimately, that are applying for their registration number, that might then be applying for their licence as well. That is what we'd argue. I don't know if Barbara wanted to come in separately on that, because I know that Carl and I have perhaps held the floor a little too long there.

I agree. Basically, it is the visitor accommodation provider, the owner of the property, who has to be responsible for providing the correct registration and/or licensing number. We, as a smaller agency, might have the ability to check those numbers, but the larger agencies certainly would be in exactly the same position as Carl and Fiona and would not be able to check those numbers. And it is literally down to the owner to make sure that they give us the correct information.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Hannah.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Sorry, I think I tried to unmute myself at the same time as the technical assistants did as well. I'm conscious of time, so I'll turn quickly to the fitness for visitor accommodation aspect of the proposed legislation. First, I just wanted to ask if witnesses are comfortable with the wording as set out in section 7 in respect of the general fitness standard. And do you have any reflections as to whether there is scope for that general fitness standard to be interpreted in perhaps different ways by visitors and accommodation providers? Thank you.

Barbara.

Fitness is extremely subjective, and what is perfect for one set of guests may be totally wrong for another set of guests. From the agency point of view, we give an enormous amount of information on our website, or when we list with other listing sites. We give photographs, we give floor plans, we give video tours, we tell people what beds are in what bedrooms. It is then up to the guest to decide if that property is suitable for them. And I think, beyond that—. Bear in mind that these are all individual homes or houses, they're not identical lodges and caravans. We're dealing with individual houses, and it is up to the guest to decide whether a property is fit for them.

From the point of view that this Bill is ensuring that the safe and legal things are there, if a property has got a gas certificate, an electrical safety certificate, a proper fire risk and insurance, that should ensure that the property itself is fit. It doesn't guarantee the quality, but that is down to the guest themselves to decide whether the quality, the decor, the floor plan, the room layout is suitable for them. I don't think it's something that can be covered in this Bill.

Any other comments from anyone, or—?

No. I agree with Barbara.

Yes, I think that Barbara has it right. The only thing I'd contribute is that those requirements should be much clearer and better defined. It's a lot of exposure to liability for obligations where it's still unclear about what's required to meet them.

Thank you. Hannah.

Thanks, Chair. So, there needs to be greater clarity on what this Bill means by what it terms the general fitness standard, then. Yes. Okay.

There are also provisions in section 42 of the proposed Bill, which sets out the contractual obligation to ensure premises are fit for visitor accommodation. Do you have any views on that, and what is your understanding of the practical effect that that might have?

Barbara's indicating you, Carl.

I think that you can almost answer that one by reference to Barbara's previous answer, which is that it's very unclear about what that means in practice. We think that that needs to be set out in a lot more detail. There's still a great level of uncertainty about how that might work in practice and, in my view, that brings us back to the fundamental problem with this Bill, which is that it's been rushed through, there's a lot of detail that still needs to be worked out, a lot that needs clarity about how it should work, and it would be far better to withdraw the Bill and bring it back once we've got data from the registration scheme and we understand what the problem is and what we're trying to achieve.

Fiona, any comments?

Yes, I'd agree with Carl's point and then Barbara's previous points. I think that, ultimately, we need to be making sure that these provisions within the Bill are incredibly clear so that operators know what is required of them, and this also, then, lends itself to the speed at which the Bill is going through the Senedd.

Are you happy with the answers you've heard, Hannah?

Yes, just one point on one of those responses there, Chair. So, I think you set out saying that we need to set out in more detail what these provisions actually mean in practice. Would witnesses have a preference as to whether that detail needs to be set out on the face of the Bill, or would that be something that they would expect to be in guidance?

I think the challenge at the moment is that the ministerial powers to determine these things are so wide-ranging that it's very difficult for us to make an assessment as to what the impact might be, given that there are so many different pathways that could be followed. Our preference would be to take the time, give it due consideration and to set it out on the face of the Bill, so that, as we go forward, accommodation providers have the ability to plan, they know what they're going to be working with and there will be certainty over what shape this requirement takes. At the moment, that's something that we don't have.

Are both of you in agreement with that?

Yes, I agree. There's so much that is put down to secondary legislation that it's just very difficult for any operator to know exactly what their future is going to be.

Okay. Hannah.

Thanks, Chair. Just a final quick question from me: do any of the witnesses have a view or reflections on any provisions in the Bill in respect of complaints? There is only one reference to complaints, in section 22, so I don't know if there are any reflections on that.

I think that there is insufficient information on this. Complaints are, again, usually very subjective and complicated, very often complaining on quality, rather than on the actual safe and legal requirements, and so, no, I think there's not enough information in the Bill.

Yes, I'd agree with that. Also, is this complaints relating to the licence process or around the provision of accommodation? Because I'd argue that, for the provision of accommodation, there's a complaints process that people will be able to go through with the accommodation provider. It should be, then, on the licence process, but, again, there’s not enough information for us really to be able to comment, but I agree with Barbara's points.

And would you agree with that, Carl?

Yes, I think that any complaints mechanism needs to be for the purpose of identifying and taking action against operators who are flouting their responsibilities; it shouldn't be used to litigate neighbour disputes or contested issues like parking or allegations of nuisance. Councils already have processes in place to deal with those types of complaints and disputes.

Okay, thank you. Is that it, Hannah?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Hannah. Sam.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, panel, and thank you for the evidence that you've provided so far. Some of my questions have already been covered, but Carl, in answering Alun Davies, there was a discussion about the possible negative impacts and the unintended consequences around this Bill. The Cabinet Secretary has told us that, quote,

'the number of people who will leave the industry as a result of this Bill is very, very small',

but there is a compliance cost estimate of about £4.5 million. What's your view of the unintended impact that this could have on the sector?

We struggle to see how the Cabinet Secretary can give you that assurance, because no serious analysis has been done that can give you that confidence, nor has there been time for sufficient consultation with the industry. Coming back to this point about the timetabling of the Bill, you know, we, as witnesses, only had about three or four weeks’ notification that we were appearing before this committee. The written consultation period lasted for only two weeks. There was pretty much no public consultation on the Bill, or the provisions of the Bill, in any meaningful way other than the original consultation in 2023, which was a very different framework. So, maybe, in answer to that question, I'd come back to the point that's been made quite a lot, which is about the overall impact of all of the different regulatory changes in the past few years. This is just one more thing that's in danger of making it so difficult and complex to operate across the board that people just drop out, especially your casual or occasional hosts who add to the kind of accommodation providers that you need to quickly scale up capacity to accommodate big events and so on and so forth.

If the Welsh Government believes that the number of people who will drop out because of licensing is very, very small, it probably returns us to the question as to whether you need to do licensing for the purpose of health and safety. We see the £4.5 million figure as the potential bottom end of the scale. Obviously, given the limited time since the Bill has been published, there's not been time to commission any independent economic analysis, but our informal estimate is that introducing licensing, on top of everything else, could see a loss of host income in Wales of between £4.5 million and £15 million.

The challenge that we have, and we come back to this point again and again, is that the Bill is being rushed; the proposals have been sprung on the sector; there needs to be a data-led and considered view of the evidence to map out what's likely to happen. And that's why we believe the Bill should be withdrawn. Let's get the facts in front of us and take the time to get it right.

Okay, thank you. Fiona.

Yes, I'd just like to come in with a statistic: after the introduction of non-domestic rates—well, actually, in the period between 2023 and 2025, there has been a drop of 17.2 per cent of operators, self-catering operators in Wales. So, there's already been a drop with these additional pieces of legislation coming in. Now, there could be an additional drop after this. We've seen in Scotland that people have decided not to continue operating. I mentioned earlier about the majority of people being over 50 and female within this industry. In Scotland, we've seen, again, this cumulative impact piece. We're seeing all of this legislation coming on, coming on, people are perhaps nearing retirement and they're choosing to jump ship before additional regulation comes in.

So, I think, yes, there isn't really an evidence base as to why we'd see that that would be a negligible impact on businesses. Ultimately, when you look at this reduction in operators, you're losing very good operators as well. You're not necessarily losing the non-compliant people; you're losing the people who have been operating for many years, who just can't cope with the additional things, or it might even be that perspective of, 'This is just more additional legislation that we have to abide by, I think I'll just retire.' So, without that real data, I think it would be interesting to see what that would look like.

Thank you. Barbara.

Yes, I can echo that. We're already seeing some of our owners, who've been with us for 20 years, saying, 'I've had enough, I can't put up with it.' Even though it may be a very small additional burden, they're just having enough. And I think we need to learn from the evidence that you heard from the Scottish people. I mean, apart from anything else, the costs of their licences varied from £200 to £5,000, so the figure of a four-point-whatever-it-is million cost to Wales's operators, I think is an underestimate. And if we go up to £200, rather than £75, to achieve a licence, then that will start to have much more of an impact.

I'm very conscious of time. So, Carl, I was just going to tee up this question around the training that's been discussed as well: is there a little element of teaching granny to suck eggs with training with regards to this sector and what the Cabinet Secretary said? He wants it to be proportionate, but what are the views on this? What do you envisage that training being that's required in the sector? Carl, I'll come to you first to allow you to come back to your point.

Yes, again, where's the evidence that requiring mandatory training as a condition of holding a licence is needed, particularly given the already safe and high quality of accommodation, which I've already mentioned? It just risks creating a much slower, bureaucratic and convoluted process than most people envisaged when the licensing proposals were first aired. It's fair to ask, 'Do we really need this?', given that Wales has coped without it and has had high-quality self-catering accommodation for decades. It's hard to see how this would provide any kind of value-add for guests, when set against the time and costs that it would impose.

Okay. Fiona.

Yes, I think, look at what would that training involve, how can you—? You've got many operators that have been operating for decades now, what are you actually teaching them about how to operate their business that they don't already know? I know that the Cabinet Secretary did refer to that. Is there another way in which to do that? That will cost an awful lot of money to get people to not only attend, but in order to host any training. Is there another way that you can do this? As I mentioned at the beginning of the session, just put that information on a website. Perhaps have a recorded webinar that people can watch if they are new to the industry, to make them aware of their obligations. Do you actually need an additional cost in the form of training to achieve that same goal, as to whatever that goal is when it comes to training?

Fair point. Barbara, closing remarks?

Yes, I agree. Training on how to run your business is teaching grandma to suck eggs. What is needed is very good communication from whoever is running the licensing scheme, to make sure that everybody out there knows exactly what they have to provide. And yes, otherwise, closing remarks: I think this Bill has come in in a rushed form; it's not been thought through properly, and needs a lot more attention.

Thank you very much. Thank you, panel.

Thank you. Just one final point from me. The Scottish evidence was referred to, I think by Barbara, and looking at the heads nodding, there's agreement with her comments on that. How much weight should the committee put on that Scottish evidence, given that the scheme is quite different, in that it hasn't got the single point of contact, for example, that the Welsh scheme is proposing, and there are various other differences—quite substantial differences—that have driven those cost differences that were highlighted, of up to £2,000, £3,000, £4,000, £5,000 in licence applications? So, how much weight do you think we should be placing on that evidence?

I think you need to learn from the mistakes that the Scottish association has pointed out. I certainly think it is a considerable advantage that we were having a single operation over the whole of Wales, rather than on an individual local authority basis. We need to avoid any postcode lottery, and that goes together with enforcement as well, that really, ideally, enforcement needs to be on a Wales-wide basis so that it's completely level, wherever it takes place.

Thank you. That's helpful about the enforcement. Carl.

We'd acknowledge some positive learnings from Scotland in this scheme: a single set of rules, no ability of local authorities to vary the requirements to get a licence. Those are positive things. But I do think it is worth giving a lot of weight to the evidence that you've received from Scottish witnesses, because they have gone through the process of a licensing regime being introduced. They've seen the mistakes that have been made along the way, and they've seen how things can change from the outset and from the stated policy intention, to something that ends up looking quite different.

The fees point that Barbara made is a good example of that. In 2021, the Scottish Government estimated that fees could be in the region of maybe the mid-hundreds, up to about £300. Fees in Edinburgh at the upper end ended up being £6,000, which actually would wipe out the income of a typical Airbnb host. So, I think your Scottish witnesses are very experienced and very knowledgeable, and have first-hand experience of dealing with this. I would give their evidence a lot of weight.

Thank you, Carl. Fiona, briefly.

Yes, I would agree with the points already made. I think there have been unintended consequences within the Scottish example. So, whilst not immediately transferable to what is being recommended in Wales, I think this then also points to the fact that any legislation that does come in on self-catering properties does need to be considered well, to make sure that there are no unintended consequences, because these will have a truly negative impact. Referring also, then, to the cost, which ended up being incredibly different, I think the evidence given by Scottish witnesses should be taken heed of.

Thank you very much. Thank you all for your evidence, both written and oral this morning. It'll greatly help the committee in its deliberations to form its conclusions for the report that will be debated after Christmas. A Record of Proceedings will be sent to you for you to have a look at. If you have any concerns over the content of that record, please raise it with the clerking team. Otherwise, that will form the official record of your evidence that you gave this morning. Thank you. We'll now go into private session while we swap witnesses around for the next panel, and we'll begin at 10:55.

Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr.

Hello and welcome back to our second evidence session of the morning. I have apologies from Hannah Blythyn, who has had to leave the meeting. We have now three new witnesses before us. I will ask each of the witnesses to introduce themselves and, obviously, give their position or the company they represent for the record. I'll start with Nicky, then ask Zoë and then move to Emma, who is on Zoom, and then we'll go straight into questions. So, Nicky, could you introduce yourself and the organisation that you're representing here today, please?

Good morning. Thank you for having me. My name's Nicky Williamson, and I'm here to represent the Professional Association of Self-Caterers UK, Wales branch.

Zoë Hawkins, chief executive of Mid Wales Tourism.

And Emma.

Emma Thornton, chief executive of Visit Pembrokeshire.

Great. Thank you all very much. Do you agree with the general principles of the Bill that we're scrutinising at the moment? I'll start with you, Nicky.

Okay. We fundamentally support the basis of health and safety and safe and legal within the Bill. We do believe that that could have been covered by a robust registration scheme, and we actually do have some concerns around the mechanism around the Bill. So, it feels like it's been done in haste, it feels like there's a lot of detail that has not been covered. We, for example, have had no time to really consult with our members, and if you think about who our members are, they're all those individuals. We are the biggest of the trade associations for self-catering, and they haven't really had the opportunity to have their voices heard. Also, there's a lack of detail. We are concerned about the scope of the Bill, particularly missing out spare rooms. And the final point is really about that it's a really nuanced sector. There is a lot of diversity amongst the sector, and things have not been considered and we haven't seen them come up in the evidence sessions. So, for example, how do you legitimately sell a business without damaging the business that is in existence and ending up with the licence being held in the wrong name? So, there's lots to work on, but we agree with the safe and legal, and it's something that we've been asking for for a long time.

Thank you. Zoë.

Yes, I agree with Nicky. We agree with the principles of the Bill. As a sector, we have been asking for this for a long time. We are concerned about the speed and, obviously, we'll get on to the detail within the Bill as well, as we move forward. So, there are elements with unintended consequences for destination marketing organisations in particular, which is a concern of ours as well.

Thank you, Zoë. Emma.

I have nothing to add to the points that both Nicky and Zoë have made, so to avoid repetition, I will just endorse their comments.

Great. Thank you. On the timing of the Bill, which does seem to be a concern to many witnesses who have come before us, how much concern do you have about the way that the Bill has been introduced and the time frame within which you have had the ability, along with your members, to respond to the contents and try to inform the creation of the Bill as well? I'll start with you, Zoë.

Yes, it seems incredibly rushed. We've hardly had any time at all, really, to go over this—it's only been a matter of weeks. So, yes, we're certainly concerned about that. I think there were updates that only happened a couple of weeks ago. The impact assessments have only been out for a few weeks as well. It's nowhere near enough time for us all to really get our heads around, and potentially look at, those unintended consequences that could come out of this. And for such a large sector, and important sector for Wales, this fundamental change in going into licensing is something that we shouldn't be rushing.

I would just add to and support Zoë's comments. We are also a membership organisation. We haven't had the opportunity to consult on the details, so we had to really look at it ourselves. And also I just would support the additional comments made, I think, around the fact that a really robust registration scheme, which is going through the process as well, would have had the same impact, but without the administrative and additional financial burden on operators.

I have nothing else to add except that, if we were to do the registration scheme beforehand, we would know more about what we're dealing with—we'd know more about the sector and, actually, the need for the licensing scheme or not.

Many witnesses have referred to the 2023 consultation and there have been various—as the Cabinet Secretary when he came before us two weeks ago pointed to—stages of consultation with the sector and interested parties. What are your views on the consultation process that has led us to where we are today? Emma, I'll go with you first and then come to Nicky and then Zoë.

I think, as my colleagues have already mentioned, there's a general support for levelling the playing field and obviously ensuring safe and legal operators. But, of course, people really engage in the detail when the detail is brought forward to them. And I think, at this stage—and this is the stage when the detail becomes apparent or certainly the scope becomes apparent—this is when it's really meaningful and when operators really want complete transparency on that detail to understand the impacts. And our concern is that a lot of that detail is still missing in the consultation process that we have before us now.

I agree with what Emma says. That consultation was around a concept, whereas this is actually a consultation around the Bill and the content of the Bill itself. It's a big piece of document; it's a big piece of subject matter for people to get their heads around. We know the majority of our operators are single operators; they're probably women over the age of 60, they're not legally trained. I'm not legally trained, I struggle with it, and we're asking them to try and give feedback on a Bill in a very short period of time.

We haven't had really any time to consult on the actual Bill itself—that's only just come out. Obviously, we were talking about registration in 2023 and the tourism levy. There are elements in here that we weren't really expecting. There's detail like how do we handle mixed-use sites. We've got registration and we've got licensing—the confusion that can happen over that at this point. We've only got licensing for one small part of the sector, but you've got registration for everybody. The premises is the other one. In the Bill, you're talking about premises as one single unit, whereas for lots of other elements—in grading or for registration—a premises will be maybe a farm that has three units. So, there's a lot of detail in here and I'm just concerned that there are the unintended consequences and the complexities now that we're starting to see, and we have not been consulted on that. This is obviously the first time, and we welcome this. But we do feel that there is a lot that needs to be ironed out before this is passed.

Thank you, Zoë. Luke.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Timings continue to come up as one of the issues around this Bill. I think there's a lot of sympathy for that as well, I wouldn't say just in this committee, but other committees as well. I can think of another Bill, for example, where timings have been a problem.

If I can look at the explanatory memorandum to start with, the explanatory memorandum talks about ending the commercial disadvantage that is currently within the system between those who are sticking to regulatory requirements and those who are not. What would be the panel's view on that assertion by the explanatory memorandum? Zoë.

Absolutely. Like I say, as a sector, we're all for levelling the playing field; absolutely we agree with that. And our businesses would like to see that, our genuine businesses, which most of them are. They've got their insurances, they've got their fire risk et cetera, and what we don't quite understand is why it's only one small part. Why is it only self-catering, when actually it should be across the board? It should be those that let single rooms and B&Bs as well. Wouldn't it be much easier for us all to have one licence that covers all parts of tourism, not just one? That's confusing for a visitor. We're saying, 'Okay, we're safe and legal, but we're only safe and legal for self-catering. We're not necessarily safe and legal for everything else', which is not actually the case; obviously, a lot of these are doing what they need to be doing. If we're going to do it, we need to do it properly and across the board, I feel.

I'd like to acknowledge that it says 'continue' to be at a commercial advantage. I appreciate the fact that that's recognised, that we are at a commercial disadvantage. I agree with what Zoë said, that without having spare rooms in there, you're missing out a huge sector of the market, which, in fact, is where the risk is. Domestic fires are where more fires happen, and we've got the data to back that up, and we can share that with you as supplementary evidence.

I would just endorse what both Nicky and Zoë have said. I think the big concern that we have is that this only currently, as it's drafted, deals with one sector of the accommodation in question and is not tackling the elements that are really at highest risk, which we should be looking to address.

Zoë, you mentioned lack of consultation. I think, actually, all three of you have mentioned the lack of consultation on this particular Bill. In the previous panel, there were references to why the Government hasn't pursued other parts of the sector within this particular Bill. Have any of you three had any similar conversations with officials around that? Have you had an opportunity to raise the questions as to why other parts of the sector haven't been included in this iteration of the Bill?

No, not really. Not to any extent, no.

Can I just add to that? We have had a lot of engagement with the Bill writers, which we've really appreciated. And yes, they've referenced it, but they've really engaged with us, and that's been really important as part of the process. And I think part of the haste is it feels as though they're listening to us when we've been saying, 'This needs to happen quickly'. But when we're saying, 'This needs to happen quickly', it needed to happen with registration. So, if bolted onto registration, this could all have been done very quickly, and I think the haste could potentially be them responding to us asking them to do it quickly, which we appreciate.

Could I just clarify? I asked about consultation, and you said that there hadn't been much consultation, and then you just said back to Luke that you'd had extensive dialogue with the Bill writers.

Over the last few weeks, with embargoed information as well.

So you're referring to the specific time frame when the Bill became live.

We're only talking—. We've been asking for it. So, we've been talking to Visit Wales officials, et cetera, talking about how we can introduce a registration scheme that's robust and includes safe and legal, and those conversations have been going on for years. They predate me. And we've had conversations with the Bill writers, and they have consulted with us on what should be included—so, for things like public liability insurance. We really appreciate that those things are in there. What we are concerned about is the scope creep of what's happening. So, our intention, our ideal is that this was covered within a robust registration scheme that is safe and legal, not an onerous licensing scheme.

It would be a similar viewpoint to our previous panel, then, that you could achieve much of what the Government wants to achieve simply just through the registration scheme alone.

Absolutely.

Okay. The other element to this as well, and I'd say, to be fair, the Cabinet Secretary has recognised this in previous sessions that we've had, is the cumulative impact of policies over the last couple of years of the Senedd term on the sector. Is there a feeling amongst the panel that, when we look at this Bill, that has been taken into consideration at all? Zoë.

I think we all know that there are issues around the cumulative impact of all the legislation that has been laid upon our sector over the last few years. Whether that's been taken into consideration is a question for Government. I would say possibly not. You've got to remember that this is actually something that, as an industry, we do want to see, licensing. We're not opposed to licensing in any way. We would have called it registration and we would have had it across the board. So, it's not that we don't want it. We're happy for it to come in. We're just concerned about the detail, the speed and the way this is being presented at the moment. That's our biggest issue.

You know what my answer's going to be. Anybody who knows me hears me talking about the cumulative impact constantly. What I will say is this is the one that we've been asking for. This is the one that we wanted, but if you think about the cumulative impact, you think about all of those things that are hitting people at the moment, I think it was beautifully understated with, 'It's been a relatively busy time for the sector.'

I've used this word before: it's brutal, the amount of pressure on our sector. And I'll remind you that the majority of the sector are women over 60. You've heard this before: two thirds of them live within 10 miles of their property, 50 per cent live next door, 94 per cent in our last survey are saying that their mental health has suffered as a result of Government interventions. That's a huge number, and we see that every day. We take the calls every day, we listen to people every day, we listen to a 90-year-old with an eating disorder every day, we listen to the person that's had a nervous breakdown every day, and this is from this scale of attack. You've heard me talk about all that, but that's very real for the sector, and we really need to consider how much pressure we're putting onto them.

I would just add support to both Zoë and Nikki's comments. To give you an indication, in Pembrokeshire, and I think it's pretty much consistent across Wales, we've seen, based on the latest Valuation Office Agency figures, that 17 per cent of self-catering providers are looking to leave the profession because of the cumulative impact of 182 days, registration, visitor levy, licensing. That's in the wider economic context, which is suppressed demand, nervousness and real anxiousness about the future. I think we're not underestimating when we say that they're feeling pretty battered and worn down, very anxious. So, I think when we're introducing this Bill, we really do need to try and make it as simple as possible and all-inclusive.

Jenny.

Thank you. I want to, first of all, look at the licensing regime. In your written evidence, which all three of you have provided, I know that at least one of you wants to include rooms within homes as well. The Cabinet Secretary is saying self-catering is 75 per cent, and rooms within homes will be at peak times, rather than being a permanent feature of that particular accommodation. I just wondered if you'd very briefly explain why.

Until we've got registration, we don't really know whether that's accurate or not. This feels like an assumption that that's the case, so you need registration to understand, actually, the sector size initially.

Fair enough.

Can I just add to that?

Yes, Nicky.

Is it okay not to be safe at certain times when you're staying in Wales? Is it okay not to be safe when you're staying in a spare room?

I'm afraid lots of people are not safe all of the time, so, you know, this is—

So, it comes back to the purpose of the scheme: what's the purpose of the scheme?

Safe and legal is clearly the purpose of the scheme.

Okay. So, why would we miss out that sector? That's my question.

Well, the Cabinet Secretary will have his own answer, but I think he was saying, 'Well, let's concentrate here and then we can look at the other sectors subsequently.' But there's no indication that we're going to do this before we've got registration in place.

The licensing fee—the indicative amount is £75. I appreciate you want a tiered system where there are multiple units on a campsite, or whatever it might be, but if it's for single premises in village X, it's £75.

Yes. But I think, realistically, we can see that number going up. We would like to see exactly what that's going to be. You know, this is just a suggested amount at the moment and without—. For small businesses, okay, if it was £75, no-one's going to worry about that for one unit, but once you start going into multi-units and mixed use, the costs can then spiral. So, I'd want to see a tiered system in place now, what we're looking at, and actually indicative costs. What would those costs be? Not a suggestion, but—.

I understand that, but, obviously, the fact that you've only got one national registration scheme prevents us having the sort of problems they've had in Scotland, so—.

I mean, I can see us running into issues with the registration scheme, because you're registering everybody. I note your point before about having self-catering, but your one-bedroomed temporary pop-up site that happened, that will be included in registration. How we're going to go—. And that's per premises as well, as far as I understand—you have one registration number per premises. This is talking about them per unit. So, I can see a whole load of complications between registration numbers, licence numbers, costs that are then associated, mixed-use sites—. I mean, the list goes on.

Okay, so you envisage people dividing up the self-catered accommodation into rooms, do you?

Well, I'm not saying that, I would say, at all.

All right. We always have to look at perverse consequences. It could be done.

Yes, but you could have one site that could have a bed and breakfast, it could be a hotel, it could have several lodges, it could have camping—you know, how are we licensing part of that and not the other parts? I don't think this has been thought through quite on that.

Okay. So, on section 47 of the Bill, you're suggesting that the legal duty to display the registration number must lie with the accommodation provider, not the third party websites. How then do we stop the people we're trying to clamp down on from just using these third party websites and getting away with it?

Are you asking me on that one? Sorry, I just feel like I'm talking too much.

Well—.

It's an open question to anyone on the panel.

It's an open question to anybody who wants to answer it.

So, how do we stop people advertising on—?

Well, I think we know it's much more difficult to regulate what's going on online. We know where to find you, all of you, when we need to, but online operators are much more difficult because you're one step away from—.

Isn't that where the registration comes in? So, if everybody has to register, then we have a record of where they are, who they are, what type of accommodation—

I think the point that Jenny's making is that, as it's drafted, the Bill will put the liability on the directors of the booking sites. And we've taken evidence that that is incompatible with best practice in other jurisdictions that have got licences, that are unworkable, in many instances, because of the way that they operate and their checks and balances. So, what I think Jenny—forgive me if I'm saying this wrongly—is trying to extract is: what is your view on where that liability sits about making sure that the advertisement of the registration number, the licence number, is sitting with the licensee rather than the website?

I think Zoë and Emma are more qualified on this one.

Yes, we're massively concerned about this, obviously, from a destination marketing organisation perspective, which lists about 600 businesses across our site. The technicalities and system architecture that you'll have to get to be able to update matching a licence to a database or a DMO site or an online travel agent site, whatever we're talking about, is incredibly complex and expensive.

Why, with modern computers and modern artificial intelligence?

Well, how would I match—? So, say you've got a licence, which has got a licence number for the name of a business, you know—per unit you're talking about—so, okay, so-and-so, Sally's cottage, is there. Now, on my system, I might have that set up as a farm with multiple units; I might have it as a different name. How do I match that business, however you guys are doing it—the Welsh Government's doing it—to how our systems operate? I could have four sites; I could have one entry. You can't match by postcode, because that's huge—you know, a huge area and a rural area. You can’t match by name, because names might change—

I hear what you're saying—technical detail. We can—

It's a massive detail.

—but it's important.

It's incredibly important.

Don't let us delve into the detail, just know that it's noted. Could I just ask you—? You, in your evidence, say that in Spain over 53,000 listings were removed in 2025 by the likes of Airbnb and Booking.com—

Yes.

—because they couldn't verify registration numbers. You're saying that that was a bad thing. You don't think it was because there were people who were operating in an unsafe and—.

If we run the risk—. You see, the problem is, you know, as much as we might love them or hate them, when it comes to OTAs, they're incredibly powerful region-marketing channels for Wales. You know, if we force global companies and try and match their systems, and they cannot match their systems, we run the risk of them just pulling the plug and pulling those businesses off. Now, where does that leave Wales, as far as marketing reach goes? We do have to be careful that we don't make this technically impossible to match. They're not going to manually match them. We can't manually match them, so there's no way—. The responsibility should absolutely be with the accommodation provider. How am I supposed to know whether a licence has been revoked, it's under review, it’s been extended—however it's working? And nor can anybody else, not reasonably. It's just not going to be possible, I feel, and that's where I worry that we'll have a really big impact on Wales's marketing ability for our businesses.

Okay, thank you. Nicky, I think in your paper, you firmly come down in favour of annual registrations. Some of the other operators have said, ‘Well, some of our bookings are for over 12 months hence and, therefore, how would that operate?’

To be honest, I think it comes down to the purpose of the Bill. We were very firm that registration should be annual, because we're looking at the data set and we're looking at keeping information up to date, but this is not—. It comes down to the purpose. If we're looking for data, it's one thing; if we're looking for health and safety, then, potentially, three to five years would be okay, as long as you've got a way of updating and checking the system.

Okay, so it wouldn't be a disaster if it were extended to, say, three years.

It depends on the purpose of the Bill.

Yes, okay, thank you. Is there anything that you, Visit Pembrokeshire, wanted to add to this, or can I move on to enforcement?

Emma, do you have a view?

I would just endorse—. Thank you. I’d agree with what Nicky said.

Okay, thank you. On enforcement, the explanatory memorandum states:

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

How would you see that working in practice? You've made some comments, particularly around the competency of local authorities to enforce regulations. Shall we start with Visit Pembrokeshire?

Yes, absolutely, I'm happy to. I think there isn't a lot of detail in the Bill, as it's currently drafted, about who would be leading on the enforcement and how it would be done. I think the concern that we would have is the capacity and resource within local authorities to do that enforcement role, and that is the lack of information that we have at the moment, because it would need to be robust. Local authorities—I know Pembrokeshire County Council in Pembrokeshire is under unprecedented challenges. I haven't had any discussions with them to date, but that's our concern across the board, really: have local authorities got the capacity?

Okay. So, is it your experience that they don't enforce at the moment?

I couldn't comment on that, to be honest, but I just know that the resource is diminishing and there is less resource to do some of the discretionary services. Obviously, it would be a statutory requirement, but I know that they are under unprecedented pressures, so it's whether they would have—. I'm not sure what consultations have been had with local authorities to date to bring them into this Bill, and the shaping of the Bill.

Okay. Nicky.

I think that enforcement has to be there, otherwise it's not effective, but it has to be proportionate. I think that the suggestion that there's a process of rectification is important. I am not a big fan of the going into a property and inspecting. I think that is perhaps a little bit too far, and that would have to be in extreme circumstances where risk has absolutely been identified, and alongside the operator.

Well, it would have to be a persistent offender, would it not? Zoë Hawkins, I think you were expressing concerns about the actual capacity of local authorities to get on and do enforcement.

Well, yes, local authorities are stretched, as—

Okay. But in Cardiff, the Vale of Glamorgan and Bridgend, they have a combined enforcement body, regulatory services. It's perfectly possible for other local authorities to get together to employ suitably qualified people to do this.

That's a question for the local authorities whether that would be—

Indeed it is.

But it should be whoever is responsible for enforcement. What we don't want to see is different enforcement across different local authorities because of resource or for any other reason. It's a centralised scheme. There should be centralised enforcement, I feel. We've also got to be careful what they're actually going to be looking at. Are they just looking at safe and legal, which is fine, when you start looking at fire risk assessments, public liability insurance et cetera, or are we, as section 7, where we start to going into really subjective elements—design, adequate heating, these sorts of—? Are you thinking that they're looking at that? Whose responsibility—?

I suppose the issue—I raised it with the Cabinet Secretary—is around the rubbish collection after the tenant has left the property, and ensuring that that is done in the way that everybody else in that street has to do it.

Yes, but that would come down to a local authority. That doesn't come within—

Indeed, but it's one of the issues that most irritates people. It's a combination of the waste strewn across the street and the noise created by people who don't have a job to go to the next day.

Aren't those powers already in existence?

They are powers already in existence, and surely that's local authority, and is not really, I wouldn't have said, within the scope of this Bill when it comes to licensing. We're talking about safe and legal. I feel like we're stretching into other areas.

Okay. Thank you.

Alun.

Thank you. I find your evidence—. I'm not sure where I stand when I'm listening to you, because I'm your customer. I'm the guy who buys accommodation in Wales, and I like this. I want regulation, because if you're going to say to me, 'Take your son; get him to sleep here', I want to know that these places are regulated. I want to know that they are fit for visitor accommodation. I want to see as much regulation as possible, because it's my money. I'm spending it with yourselves or your members. And do you know what? I want somebody to go into our accommodation, if necessary, to poke around, to check that it's okay, before I spend my money with you. So, I'm interested that you've spent a lot of time this morning—all your time, in fact—talking about all the difficulties with this from the perspective of your members. What you haven't done is look at any of the potential upsides. Because people like me, I can tell you, want more regulation, not less.

And if I can take you back to when you asked us originally whether we agreed with the general principles, we do, and we've been asking for safe and legal. What we're concerned about is the detail that's lacking in making this a watertight Bill.

Tell us what you mean by that.

For example, you talk about complaints, but there's no information about how that would happen. If I can make this clear, this is something that we've been asking for. I'm sure you think that we say ‘no’ to everything.

No, I don't think that, but you haven't been overwhelming in your welcome this morning, have you?

But is that not the purpose of the scrutiny committee? As I said earlier, there are so many nuances in tourism and hospitality, and you're asking us for our expert opinion so that we can work through all this detail, but because of the lack of time, there hasn't been that opportunity to work through that detail, and that's our concern. So, we want it to be safe and legal, and we want to be able to give those assurances, but we need to be sure that what's happening is within the scope of the Bill and is clearly defined, so it avoids that uncertainty. There are limited guarantees; there's a lot that's left to secondary legislation; and there's a lot that's going to need a lot of guidelines, some of which is probably unnecessary.

Like what?

For example, if you look at section 7—I think section 7—where it talks about—

The fitness standard.

Yes, and I think we all fundamentally agree that the property should be fit, but I think it's section 7 where it talks about harm and it talks about amenity. So, harm is the safe and legal part of it, amenity is more of a quality part of it. So, if you think about a shepherd’s hut with a compost toilet, is that adequate drainage? Probably not. So, those nuances—. And with that one, I think in order to be able to really clarify what that section means, you're going to have to go through a huge amount of guidance. For what? Because, actually, if you spend your money there and you're not happy with the adequate drainage, you're going to leave us a bad review. We're going to know about it. If we don't sort it out, we're going to get more bad reviews and that's where the enforcement comes in. But I wouldn't waste your time on trying to do that detail. I would leave that to—. Everybody accepts it should be fit for purpose.

But that's what the law says, of course, and it outlines what that is going to be. But if you're hiring a shepherd's hut for a weekend in deepest rural Ceredigion, you're, I presume, assuming a different experience than a luxury flat in Jenny's constituency in the centre of Cardiff.

Exactly, which is why it's so difficult to put all of that detail in the Bill.

Well, I would suggest that that's why secondary legislation would be more appropriate for that than primary.

Can I just come in there about the grading? We've already got, the Welsh Government already manages, a grading system for a lot of these subjective elements, which has been working for decades and has a complaints procedure.

But this is different.

This is different. But when we start talking about adequate lighting, whose decision is it that that lighting is adequate? Now, we have grading inspectors, we have a grading scheme already in place for that. So, I don't know why it would be brought in at this level as well, under licensing. We don't want to undermine our grading either, and our—

Grading is something different. We understand, you know, quite often if I'm—

It touches on grading.

It touches on amenity.

But if I'm looking for something for the family, I'll go for a higher grade than if it's just me, frankly, and if it's just me going off to work somewhere and I just want accommodation where I'm just going to be essentially sleeping and the rest of it. It's a different sort of experience, isn't it, if you're going on a holiday with the family and the rest of it. And so grading will come into that, more so. Whereas for me, even if it's just me, I would expect the accommodation to meet basic standards, a basic quality assessment.

And we all agree with that.

And minimum standards are part of grading. So, when you have star grading, you also have an approved listing, which is a basic minimum standards grade. So, a business doesn't have to get star grading if they don't want to. That's fine. But you can get an approved listing, that you then comply to minimum standards. Now, that already exists. I'm sure that could just be looked at to be extended, which takes in things like public liability insurance, et cetera. And why we wouldn't extend that could have been—

And that's why I don't see—. I'm not sure I understand the concern about what it says here in the legislation, 'fitness for visitor accommodation'.

I think it's too vague, and because of the nuances it would need too much detail.

I'm reading it; I think it looks pretty comprehensive to me, but comprehensive to me—. We'll leave it at that. So, in terms of where you are—I'm sorry, Emma, I'm aware that you are watching this—how would you then amend this legislation in terms of the section 7 standards?

Can I invite Emma to come in because I'm conscious she's on the screen?

No, I'm absolutely happy. On that one, I would defer, actually, probably to Nicky because, obviously, she's closer to a sector-specific industry organisation. But I do share the—. I would just reiterate the points that have been made, really, that we completely support the principles, but I do think there's an opportunity to align the grading system we already have, so that we're not providing too many systems for operators to try and align themselves to. So, whether we can rationalise this. And I think there is a lot of subjective wording in the Bill, as it's currently constructed. So, it's about being more specific with those specifications, which, again, I think probably Nicky is better equipped to respond to.

Can I invite you, Nicky, to respond?

I think we've covered it, really. I think it's, really, about the nuances of the sector. So, when you start talking about whether it's got—. I'll come back to toilets again, sorry—toilet humour. If you've got a 'sleeps 12', has it got a toilet? Yes, it's got a toilet. Does it need two toilets because it's got 12 people? At what point is the right level of toilets for that amount of people? There's too much doubt in there to cover those nuances, and I almost think you're better to leave that to the self-regulation of reviews, et cetera. So, if it doesn't fit your purpose, you're not going to go back. If it's not safe, then that needs to be addressed.

Well, they're two different things, aren't they? We can all point to accommodation we've stayed in that has been dreadful—absolutely dreadful—and you'd never go back at all, and other accommodation that is great, it's lovely, and you might go back every so often. But it doesn't mean it's not safe; you just don't like it, and that's a different thing. What we're talking about here are basic safety issues, and I have to say, reading through the Bill as it stands, I think the Bill is quite comprehensive here. I'm not sure how you would want to see—. It's why I ask you for amendments you'd like to see to it, because I'm looking at the Bill and I'm seeing quite a comprehensive piece of legislation. I was assuming you'd say you'd want a lot less, frankly. So, it might be useful, Chair, if I asked the witnesses simply to write to us with any amendments that they'd like to see to this section of the legislation, rather than pursue it this morning.

Okay. Are you content with that?

Yes.

Lovely, thank you. No further questions, Alun?

No.

Sam.

Thank you very much. I'm going to start with some questions around the advertising requirements, training and impacts off the back of the previous panel that I challenged. Advertising this now, and section 46, the challenge to the previous panel was around: are they liable for some of the issues—should they be—for advertising false information that they've been provided with? What's your view on this? Zoë, we'll start with yourself.

So, you're talking about having the licence or registration numbers, and keeping those up-to-date. I think I said before that that's incredibly difficult. I can't see how we're going to match systems in order to be able to do that easily. I think the liability should sit with the business. Obviously, we'll put the provision in place so that they can put their licence number, their registration number, et cetera, on our sites, but that has to sit with them. There's just no way that DMOs—. My system will work very differently to Emma's system, will work differently to Booking.com, et cetera. Technically, it's not going to be possible.

The other thing you're going to have is your registration and your licence numbers. How on earth are we going to identify registration to licence? You're licensing individuals, but you're registering all. I'd like to see, technically, how those numbers are going to work as well.

Thank you. Emma, I can see you putting your hand up on screen.

Thank you. I think, just to build on those points, in the context of DMOs, DMOs are not-for-profit organisations with very small, nimble teams delivering a wide range of activity. So, as well as the technical limitations, it's challenging enough to get our 600-plus businesses to get up-to-date information on their listing. They do it themselves. We physically wouldn't have the resource to do that for them. Yes, as Zoë's said, we can put the facility in for them to add the registration and licensing number, but we just physically wouldn't have the technical expertise, ability or resource to police that. So, as not-for-profit partnerships who are working tirelessly to build our visitor economies sustainably and support our very diverse mix of businesses, it's a real concern that we could, as small not-for-profit organisations, be liable for incorrect information, and that is a very high risk.

Thank you, Emma. Nicky.

I think this is more for the other guys to comment on. The only thing I would say is I'd be quite hesitant about putting anything visible on a holiday let in Wales at the moment to show that it is a holiday let.

As in physical signage on a property.

Yes.

Okay. And then in our session with the Cabinet Secretary, in discussing the potential impact, he quoted that

'the number of people who will leave the industry as a result of this Bill is very, very small.'

Thoughts on that, Zoë.

I wouldn't know, to be honest. It would be a guess.

As in a guess—

We don't know how many are in the industry at the moment, so how would we measure how many? I wouldn't know, unfortunately.

Okay. Nicky.

In our latest survey, 26 per cent of operators said that they intend to cease trading in the next two years. We've already seen the—. I think Emma talked about the drop in self-catering properties. According to the Valuation Office Agency, 17.2 per cent of people are leaving the sector. This in itself—again, it comes to the cumulative impact—probably wouldn't make them leave, but with the other 19 interventions that they're dealing with, it's the straw that'll break the camel's back. It's just too much of an overload for the operator.

Okay. Thank you. And in terms, then—sorry, Emma, I will come to you on this—of the discussions you're having with Government, Government officials, is there any understanding of that cumulative impact when you're discussing? Or is it a case of, 'We are ploughing ahead with this, with what has been a part of the co-operation agreement between the Welsh Labour Government and Plaid Cymru; it was a manifesto commitment, we are going hell for leather for this, regardless of the impact that's being seen in the sector'?

I've got two words to say to that: statutory registration. If you did statutory registration properly, you'd get the data, you'd see what needs to be addressed. There are certain interventions that are just going ahead without having that data. I think if we were able to just pause, get the data, look at who we're dealing with, really, how many second homes, how many self-catering businesses, how many rogue operators—get the data and then reset and look at what legislation needs to be done, in a data-led, informed way. That's my view.

Because one of the only data points we have is that there are more vacant properties than second homes in Wales. Emma.

Yes, I would just add to Nicky's points on that. I don't feel, as we said at the beginning, that there is a sense of the quantum and the cumulative impact of the amount of legislation that tourism operators are dealing with, and I haven't yet seen any summary of the impact of that cumulative data.

Okay. Thank you. And then coming on to the estimated cost of compliance, which has been put at £4.5 million for the sector, firstly, is that, do you believe, an accurate assumption, and what do you think that could do to the sector as well, and to the visitor economy, as in customers, prices et cetera? Nicky, I'll start with you, given PASC's role.

The market price is driven by the market. All of these little things that add a little bit of cost have an impact, and squeeze margins. If the market dictates the price, you can't put up the price just because you want to, because you won't get the business. We already know that 86 per cent of operators are discounting heavily just to reach 182. We already know that 47 per cent of those who are—. I know we're not here to talk about this, but this is significant: 47 per cent of those people who have been reverted to premium council tax are now unprofitable. They're either making a loss or no profit. We already know that they only make £3,000 to £5,000 in profit a year. So, every little cost has an impact. It's like the princess and the pea. It's there.

What I would also say, just on costs, is that I really appreciate the fact that I think the Welsh Government are trying to keep this cost low. The £75 fee is well-intentioned. I think it's intended to try and keep it as low as possible. But I think there's a lot of detail behind it that we're lacking in order to be able to—

In your opinion, is that a realistic figure, £75? I appreciate the Cabinet Secretary said it's an indicative figure, because by the time this comes in in 2029, we're going to be in a different era altogether. But many witnesses have come before us and compared it to other schemes and laughed it out of the room.

I would love it to be £75, but I think it's probably impractical, particularly when you compare it with other schemes. I know they want to use AI, and that's great. If we can do that, then fantastic, but is that technology available? Is it too much of an investment to be able to get it? There's a lot of question marks again behind this, and I think there's a lack of real, solid foundational data to really work out whether that is a realistic cost. It feels low.

I'd agree with what Nicky said, to be honest.

Emma, I can see you nodding as well.

Yes. Nothing to add.

Thank you. And then in terms of the training, is this a case of, as I said to the previous panel, teaching your granny to suck eggs, or is there a purpose behind the training? What would you as a sector be looking for in terms of training? Is it necessary, or is there a benefit to having some of this, or is it just put in there to satisfy, to say, 'We're offering training', but it doesn't actually bring a benefit to it? Because if you're looking at those long-term businesses who are already compliant, what can be taught to them that they don't already know? Zoë.

I would want to know what the purpose of the training is. They're already compliant anyway, the majority of our businesses, so why would we put them through training? It's training for training's sake. These things can turn into tick-box exercises, which is no benefit to anybody. So, I'd want to see the detail of what exactly the Government's got in mind around training.

I'm fully aligned with Mark Drakeford. He gets it; he clearly said that he doesn't want people who have been doing this for donkey's years to have to sit through unnecessary training, and I think that's absolutely right, and we really appreciate that viewpoint. Forty-nine per cent of our operators have been operating for 10 plus years. I think we need to think about where the risk is. I think it's well-intentioned, I think it's about educating people, but I think we need to make sure that it's aimed at the right people.

I would endorse that. I think it should be proportionate to the need and experience, and also, where it is delivered, in a variety of different options, so in person or online if required. But I think the key message, as we've already said, is that a lot of the operators are very experienced and wouldn't require the training, so it should have a really clear purpose and output.

Okay. And finally, because I know there's a little bit of time, do you think that, between yourselves, between your sectors, you could design a scheme that is better than what is currently written in this legislation? Do you think that, actually, if we locked you in a room for 24 hours and said, 'Right, come up with something that the sector can be proud of, that will satisfy the customers', as in Alun Davies's set of questions, you could come up with something better than what's on the face of this Bill at the moment? Zoë.

Of course we could. At the end of the day, we're experts in our field, and that's why we've been brought in. When you're making Bills, you've not necessarily got all the experience and the understanding—and the knock-on effects that this could have—that the sector has. So, I feel that there are some fundamentals in here that we would all collectively like taken out, or things that maybe we would want to see added in.

I think it comes back to one of the evidence sessions where the Scottish guys, I think, were asked whether they had been involved in the development of the scheme up there, and they said, 'Yes, and we were ignored'. And that's the point here: we're trying to make this the best it can be. We've got the knowledge. We want to share the knowledge. We want it to be good. We want it. And we can explain those nuances. I also fundamentally think that a lot of it—. We need to really be clear on what the purpose is, because a lot of this could be covered by a registration scheme.

Coming back to the point—and you've stressed it a couple of times, there, Nicky—of 'We want this', which part of it do you want? Is it the registration—?

Safe and legal.

The safety?

Yes.

But you see that being able to be done through the registration scheme, rather than the separate licensing scheme that comes concurrently.

Yes. With a document upload of the things that are mentioned specifically in section 7, so the fire risk assessment, the gas safety, the electrical, and the public liability insurance—. Again, we really appreciate that that's in there, because we've been pushing for this, because this differentiates between a business and a—. We believe that, with a document upload of those, on a registration scheme, this would actually achieve pretty much the purpose of the Bill. It would be way less onerous and way less burdensome. And less work for you guys.

I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Sam. Thank you very much for your evidence this morning, and, obviously, the written evidence that you provided as well. That has greatly informed the opinions and views of the committee members, and, obviously, the lines of questioning that we've put to you this morning. The Record of Proceedings will be sent to you for you to have a look at. If you have any concerns over the comments attributed to you in that Record of Proceedings, please raise it with the clerking team. If not, that will form the official record of your evidence from this morning's session. Thank you very much.

Do we have one moment for closing remarks?

No. If you want to follow anything up with written comments, you're more than welcome to. Thank you.

Papers to note. Any comments on papers to note?

On No. 11 about your correspondence with the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the UK Parliament, it's only just been sent, but it's highly relevant to the environmental governance Bill, because there may be targets to be set. I just wondered when we can realistically expect a response, because I'm sure the climate change committee will be interested in seeing it before Stage 2, which is in the middle of December.

The simple answer to that is I don't know myself. When might we get a response to that, Rachael, or is that Rob's ballpark because he was dealing with it?

We can check with them when we—

I wondered if you could speak to the clerk and say, 'This is actually quite urgent'.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you for raising that, Jenny. Any other points on the papers to note? No.

I've got to read this now to make sure I get it right. I now propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42, that the committee resolves to exclude the public from items 6, 7, 8 and 10.

Remarkably well read.

Yes, I thought so myself. I forgot the 'of today's meeting'.

Content.

Good stuff. Okay, that's what we'll do. Thank you.

Welcome back to the afternoon session, and the final evidence session that we have on the legislation before us, with the Cabinet Secretary making his return journey with his officials from when he was with us two weeks ago. I'd like to welcome Julie Morgan to the committee, who is deputising for Hannah Blythyn. Welcome, Julie. We will have the introductions first of all, and the positions and roles that you've played with the legislation, for the record. I'll start with you, Emma, first, if I may, and work down the table, and then we'll go straight into questions.

Thank you. I'm Emma Anderson, and I'm a Government lawyer.

Good afternoon. Dylan Hughes, first legislative counsel, and one of the drafters of the Bill.

Mark Drakeford, Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language.

Helen John. I'm the deputy director for licensing of visitor accommodation.

I'm Robbie Thomas. I'm head of licensing of visitor accommodation.

Thank you very much, everyone. Cabinet Secretary, could you confirm what the Bill is setting out to achieve? Is it to improve the tourist experience here in Wales, or is it to tackle the housing situation, or a combination of both?

I think it's a combination of both. But the primary lens of the legislation is what it says in its title. It is to promote the development of tourism here in Wales. That is the primary purpose of the Bill. But as I think I've been clear on throughout, tourism cannot thrive in Wales in the way we want it to without attending to the needs of those communities in which it is concentrated. There's a symbiotic relationship between the future of the industry and the future of those communities, and there is no doubt that the very rapid growth in self-contained accommodation has in some places meant that houses that would previously have been available for long-term letting have now become available only for short-term letting, meaning that people who live in those communities, who give them their character and make them the sorts of places that people want to visit, are no longer as able to remain in those communities as they otherwise would have been. So, there is a housing purpose. It does level the playing field between the requirements on an accommodation provider who is making accommodation available on a long-term rented basis and a short-term rented basis, and that is necessary in order to create the conditions in which tourism can thrive, and that is the primary purpose of the Bill.

This morning, Cabinet Secretary, some of the witnesses said to us that this legislation has been rushed. They also said that Welsh Government officials had admitted to them in meetings—and I'm not very clear; I want to make sure I get this correct—that part of the reason that there is so much left to subordinate legislation in the Bill is because the Government ran out of time to sort these details out. How would you respond to that?

I think it is a very curious suggestion that the legislation has been rushed when it has been five years in the making. This is legislation that was signalled in the manifesto of my party, and indeed of other parties, that was in the programme for government, which we published within a few months of the 2021 election, and confirmed again in the co-operation agreement, and has been in a direct relationship with the visitor levy Bill, which has already made its way successfully through the Senedd. I simply do not accept the argument that this is in any way rushed. There are always things that you have to concede when the guillotine comes down on a Bill. I think I've taken Bills in double figures now through the Senedd, and there's never been a Bill in which there wasn't something you would have liked to have worked on further than that. And there will be some things, which I've already discussed in front of other committees, that we will bring forward as Stage 2 amendments, but that is not a unique position in this Bill; it's just the nature of the way legislation is made.

Alun Davies has a supplementary.

In some ways, I quite welcome the fact that the Government has brought forward a Bill with quite an expedited timetable, because we've heard a lot of Ministers saying how impossible that is to do in this Senedd. So, I'm quite glad we've got the precedent here of the Government being able to do this. I think it'll be important in the next Senedd. But it's not true, though, is it, Cabinet Secretary, to say that because a Bill has been signalled in the programme for government and in the agreements that you've described, that that is the same as parliamentary scrutiny of a Bill? It's not the same thing at all. And a consultation on a policy option isn't the same as scrutiny of legislation. I think that it's important that we differentiate between a general debate, on which I don't disagree with your analysis at all, where you have a debate on the policy, but then you have the parliamentary scrutiny and the public scrutiny of what is written in black and white on the face of the Bill. Those are two different things, and I think that the people today were very much referring to the latter rather than the former.

Well, I definitely agree that that's an important distinction, but I'm not absolutely certain that that is what you have heard, because the sector has had a long-held view that they would like things to have been done more slowly. That is often, in my view, a disguise for the fact that they don't really like the legislation at all, so they will adduce arguments in support of that. But I absolutely agree with Alun Davies that there is a distinction between policy development and the discussions, for which there has been plenty of time, and plenty of time for the sector to be engaged in that, and the actual words in a Bill and then the parliamentary process, which we're engaging in today.

I have to say that I don't think we've heard any evidence that has demurred from the general principles of what the Bill talks about on the health and safety grounds. In fact, everyone I can think of who came before us was supportive of the general principles. It was the methodology that you've arrived at, where a lot of the witnesses—in fact all the witnesses—pointed to the fact that they would have preferred to have seen the register in place first of all, with all the data that the register would have had, and then to look at a licensing Bill that would have been built on the data that the register would have provided. Can you see the anxiety that that creates, that they're getting a licensing system that isn't necessarily built on the strongest of data around a sector that they all readily acknowledge needs reforming?

By the time anybody has to acquire a licence, the register will be complete and published. The argument is whether we should have delayed introducing a licensing scheme at all until the register was in place. I don't think, myself, that that is a strong argument. We are setting up the requirements for the licensing system here. By the time the detail of how it will operate in practice is required, the register will be available. I'm not certain that I would have been prepared to have waited another three or four years, potentially, in order to achieve the benefits of the Bill—a Bill for which, as you've said, Chair, witnesses have been supportive of the principle.

One of the things that has come over in the evidence that we've taken is that they've suggested that, by not having safety standards for spare rooms and bed and breakfasts included in the scope of the Bill, this means that the policy is failing at its first hurdle, because it's a health and safety issue. Could you explain why you chose not to bring that within the scope of the Bill, given, obviously, your previous comments about what the Bill is seeking to achieve?

Well, Chair, as I think I tried to explain last time I was with you, the Bill focuses on the largest component of the accommodation that we sought to capture in the first iteration of the Bill. So, the Bill captures self-contained self—

Catering.

Self-catering—sorry, I always fall at that hurdle—self-contained and self-catering accommodation. Seventy-five per cent of providers provide that sort of accommodation. It is the bulk of what we wish to capture, but the Bill opens up a pathway to the future in which other forms of accommodation could be added to the licensing regime. It's encouraging to me that you've heard witnesses who want the Bill to go further than it does, but there is no inhibition on a future Senedd adding spare rooms and bed-and-breakfast accommodation to the scope of the licensing regime. There would be things you would have to think through in order to do that. It wasn't part of the scope of this Bill, and I don't think you could bolt it onto this Bill at this stage. But there is no—. The Bill will set up the ability of a future Senedd to add those parts of the accommodation sector into the licensing regime if that's what the Senedd wished to do.

Supplementary, Sam Kurtz.

Yes, thank you. Just on that, Cabinet Secretary, you mentioned that self-catering self-contained is the largest, but, if this is a Bill going after the health and safety issues as a priority, do you have data to back up that it's within the self-catering sector—the self-contained self-catering sector—where the majority of health and safety issues rest?

Well, I want to take just a little—. I didn't earlier on, but I will for a moment just take issue a little with the idea that this is a health and safety Bill. I don't think that that's what it is. It is a Bill about licensing accommodation so that people who visit it know that the things they might expect to have in place are in place. And I think there is evidence that, because of the very rapid rise in entrants into the self-contained self-catering accommodation in the recent past—a 100 per cent growth between 2011 and 2019 and a 60 per cent growth beyond 2019—there is a risk that there are entrants into the market who do not understand the obligations that already exist. In relation to bed-and-breakfast accommodation, for example, four of the five obligations to get a licence already apply to you if you are providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It's only the fifth, the new obligation in relation to public liability insurance, that isn't an existing obligation of that sector.

So, the presumption that's been made there is, because of growth in the sector, there are problems, but there's no data to show that there are problems. There's a presumption off the back of one fact that another fact must be true, which isn't the case, because there's no data to show that, because of the increase in self-catering self-contained units, there's been an increase in those businesses that aren't qualifying with insurance, certification et cetera.

Well, there is evidence, Chair. There's evidence in a series of reports written independently of the Welsh Government: reports by the sector itself, by the House of Commons library, and there is the evidence from the Scottish experience of the number of applications that were not able to demonstrate that they already had in place the pre-existing legal requirements. This is not a Bill brought forward in the absence of evidence. I've rehearsed with you before that evidence is varied, that it has a wider range than you would normally expect, but that, in all of those pieces of evidence, there are patterns there to be seen. That pattern led us to believe that this is the right place to start with a licensing regime. Of course, Chair, as I've said before, Scotland already has such a regime. Northern Ireland already has such a regime. England are about to institute a regime. I do not think it would be in the interest of the industry for Wales to be the only place that you visit where you didn't have the assurance that those things were in place.

I have two further supplementaries: Alun and then Jenny.

I just wanted to take you back to a comment you made about the extent of the reach of the regulation in licensing here. You said that you didn't believe it could be done in this Bill—to extend it in terms of rooms and the rest of it. The long title doesn't seem to preclude that. And certainly, where we have the definition of the key concepts—I guess, clause 5 or Part 5 onwards—it seems to me that you could amend that to include another group of sorts of accommodation, if the Government wished to do that, but you could certainly—I'm looking at Dylan here as well—I would have expected, establish a process by which the Government could extend that through regulation.

And that is exactly what the Bill does, Chair, yes. It was not my argument that it was not possible to do it, because the Bill does set out a path through which, through regulations, other sectors—we talked about caravan and camping sites when I was last here with you—further sectors can be added to the licensing regime. The point I was trying to make is that there are particular characteristics of any of those other sectors that you would have had to have worked through with the industry. We've had no consultation specifically on doing those things. That would lie to a future Senedd, but the Bill sets up the process by which that can be done.

Cabinet Secretary, the committee has heard about the limited data available on the Welsh tourism sector and potential human rights concerns in relation to the licensing scheme. How did you conclude that the Bill strikes the right balance between promoting tourism and reassuring visitors on the one hand, and the control of private property on the other?

Well, Chair, one of the first things a Minister has to be satisfied about in bringing forward a Bill is that it is compliant with human rights obligations, and I will have had a significant amount of advice on a range of articles that give me confidence that the Bill is compliant in that way. Of course, the Llywydd also has to be satisfied that the Bill is compliant with human rights obligations, and the Llywydd raised no questions as to the Bill being consistent with those obligations when she wrote giving her agreement to the Bill coming forward.

I've rehearsed in front of some other committees the safeguards that the Bill sets out in those parts of its operation where human rights issues might be most closely engaged. That is, of course, in the more intrusive powers that the Bill has. I just want to set out some of the safeguards that the Bill contains in order to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. This is in relation to when the Bill allows for someone's property to be entered and inspected, given the point that you made about the control of private property. I think that there are four different steps that the Bill sets up, each one of which is designed to make sure that compliance is there.

First of all, before anybody embarked upon a power of entry, it has to be on the grounds that reasonable grounds have already been established to believe that a condition has been breached or a provider has given false or misleading statements. You've got to establish the grounds before you take any action. Then you have to establish that, if there are grounds, inspection is the right answer to meet those concerns. Then, having satisfied yourself that there are reasonable grounds for anxiety and that inspection is the right answer, there are no powers in this Bill that would allow inspectors to enter a property by force. Then, if you really did need to do that and you did get power of entry by application for permission to do that, there are limitations on what you can do when you do enter a premises. Powers of entry are explicit in this Bill in preventing an inspector from inspecting, copying or taking away materials belonging to a visitor in that property. All of those steps are deliberately included in the Bill in order to allow me, as the Minister—and, as it turned out, the Llywydd as well—to confirm that the Bill is compliant with human rights conventions.

And finally from me, Cabinet Secretary: to what extent do the powers of the provisions in Part 2 of the Bill go further than Welsh Ministers' existing powers? And would the Cabinet Secretary respond to any—? Is the Cabinet Secretary considering any amendments at Stage 2 to this particular part of the legislation?

I don't have any plans at present to bring forward Stage 2 amendments in relation to Part 2 of the Bill, Chair. Part 2 of the Bill is the part of the Bill that restates the existing powers of the Welsh Ministers. It is the part of the Bill that aims to improve the accessibility of tourism legislation, bringing existing powers together in one place. So, it is a restatement section. It augments existing powers in two limited ways. First of all, it introduces the need to have regard to the importance of mitigating the social and environmental impacts of tourism and maintaining and promoting the Welsh language. Those are introduced in this section, but they are consistent with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and they're consistent with the language used in the visitor levy Bill.

And the second way in which you could argue that existing powers of Welsh Ministers are augmented in Part 2 is that Part 2 does have an express power to issue a code of practice in relation to the Bill. Now, I believe that it would have been possible to have issued a code of practice under the general tourism development powers. So, I think my argument would be that this is only new in the sense that it is an explicit power to do something where an implicit power already existed.

Luke.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. If I could focus in on the licence scheme, a number of witnesses that we've had before the committee raised a number of concerns around the scheme itself. So, if I could start with the fee, how confident is the Cabinet Secretary that that fee of £75 will be the fee in practice once the Bill passes? Because we had evidence from witnesses in Scotland who spoke of the Scottish experience, where the Scottish Government had initially suggested that fees would be between £234 and £436, but then when the reality set in you had a situation where the smallest fee in Scotland was £205 and the biggest one was £5,698. So, that was something that was raised with us as a committee as a potential concern.

Surely. Well, I think the first thing to say, Chair, of course, is that it is important to compare like with like. Ours is an annual fee. The Scottish fee can be for three years. So, if you had a three-year fee of £205, then it is not very different to an annual fee of £75. So, the gap is not as big as it was sometimes, I think, suggested. Equally, our licensing regime is not the same regime as is being introduced in Scotland. The Scottish regime is a local authority-led regime. That means different local authorities in Scotland have different requirements in order to obtain a licence, and some have more onerous requirements than others. Ours has been, from the very beginning, and as a result of hearing what the sector has said to us, a national, simple and straightforward regime. It does not have some of the complexities that the Scottish scheme has within it, partly because we've dealt with some of those complexities in other legislation and other changes that we have brought through the Senedd during this term. So, we don't have planning changes in this Bill, because we've already introduced article 4 direction planning powers in another part of the work that we've done. There are no council tax changes involved in our Bill, and there are council tax issues caught up in some parts of the Scottish scheme.

So, because our Bill, our licensing regime, as I say, is national in intent, no variation from one local authority to another, simple and straightforward in its obligations—four of the five specific obligations are things that accommodation providers should already have in place—that gives me confidence that the £75, which I'm not saying to you at all today that that will be the final figure in four years' time, but that that is the right sort of place that the licensing charge will end up at.

You can understand, where we aren't able to give the guarantee on that £75, why some of the organisations and some of the witnesses were raising concerns. That led into potential conversations around a cap. I know that, in the first appearance that the Cabinet Secretary made, we went over this and the Cabinet Secretary made the case for, firstly, not putting a cap in place but, secondly, as well, keeping this as regulation rather than on the face of the Bill. Is that still the position of the Cabinet Secretary after the evidence we've taken so far?

Well, in some ways, Chair, there is a form of a cap in place in any case, because with the rules within which we operate, and they are set out in documents such as 'Managing Welsh Public Money', we're only allowed to have a cost-recovery scheme. You can't have a scheme that makes money. So, the maximum charge is already there in the sense that, when you add up the cost and you divide it by the number of people who have to pay the fee, that's what the fee will be. I'm not attracted to a fee on the face of the Bill, because, as I say, you'd have to do it in today's prices. You'd put £75 on the face of the Bill, the first time anybody will pay a licence is in 2029, and the real value will already have been eroded.

Chair, I thought I would say to you this afternoon, if the chance arose, and it has a result of this question, because this issue has been explored in other committees as well, that, at the moment, the Bill requires consultation before the final fee is fixed, but it doesn't require a vote on the floor of the Senedd on that. I've asked the team to consider whether we would bring forward a Stage 2 amendment so that, the first time the fee is set, there would have to be an affirmative vote on the floor of the Senedd. If I were to do that, it would be in order to give confidence to the sector that there are checks and balances in here and we'd introduce an extra one to take account of some of those concerns.

I'm always happy to provide the Cabinet Secretary with an opportunity to give that further detail. I want to stick just with one more question on the fee element, because, I think, in answer to the first question, the Cabinet Secretary was right in pointing out the differences between the Scottish scheme and the Welsh scheme, in that there's a multi-year fee rather than an annual fee, as we have here proposed in this Bill. We did take evidence from a number of witnesses who expressed a desire to potentially have a multi-year fee rather than sticking to that one year, on the basis of administrative burden, not wanting to go through the process every year, but also on a practical basis, where some of them are taking bookings for up to two years in advance. Is that something that the Cabinet Secretary has given consideration to, in potentially making it a multi-year fee rather than just an annual one?

Yes. Look, we have obviously given some thought to how long the licence should last for. There were a number of considerations that, in the end, tipped the balance in favour of a one-year licence. Chair, I think you've touched on some of these already. Because I do hear the anxieties of the sector that the Bill might be an inhibition to people entering the sector in future. Now, I don't believe that the Bill would be determinative in that. But I do think that if you are someone thinking of setting up a business in this field and wanting to see whether you could make a success of it, having to pay a licence for what could be a five-year period—I see some witnesses have suggested to you that a five-year period would be the right one for a licence—I think that would be an inhibition to somebody, knowing they've got to commit themselves to a five-year time horizon as a new entrant, whereas a one-year fee I think is more attractive to people who are thinking of becoming providers of accommodation. They've got a one-year horizon. They can decide whether or not this is a business that they want to continue in and can make a success of.

I think the other thing is that it depends a lot on what people have to do in order to renew the licence. My aim is that renewal of the licence should be as straightforward as possible. I don't want people to have to reprovide information that is already extant as part of getting your licence for a second year. We talked, when I was last here, about some of the ways I hope the system will have an element of automation about it, so the system should know that there is no need for you to provide a certificate for this purpose, because we've already seen it and we already know that it is in place. The application for your second year of a licence should be, I hope, as straightforward and as simple as it can be. I think that that mitigates some of the arguments that you've heard in favour of three- and five-year licences, because this is a system that should not have significant obligations on people; it should be as automatic as we can make it.

At the risk of adding complication, and taking away from the Cabinet Secretary's desire to keep it as simple a regime as possible, would there be a case, then, for saying that, for those new entrants, they have the option to pay the fee for a licence that would last one year, and for those longer term ones the option to pay a multi-year fee, and that licence would extend for the same period of time, giving some of that flexibility, then, I suppose?

I haven’t explored that option with the team; I’m very happy to do it to see whether there’s merit in that. It does have an element of complexity about it, as Luke Fletcher has said, Chair.

On the businesses that are already operating, then, whilst the application is being made for their licence, would they be in a position to continue operating whilst waiting for that application to be approved?

Yes. The Bill is designed to make sure that businesses that are currently operating and are waiting for a licence would be able to continue. Provided that they had made an application for the licence within the timescale set down in the Bill, they would be able to continue operating while their licence was being approved.

Okay, just a final few questions from me, Chair. The length of time has been something raised with us, as a committee, on the application process, with specific reference to Rent Smart Wales and the length of time that it can take to process applications, in some cases taking up to eight weeks, and that’s when Rent Smart Wales is dealing with 6,000 applications, which is significantly less than the 30,000 applications that the Bill predicts would need to be dealt with. How would the Cabinet Secretary see that progressing? What assurance could the Cabinet Secretary give that visitor accommodation providers would not find themselves in that position, where they might be waiting a length of time to get their application, especially with the new entrants?

I just want to make sure, Chair, that I’ve understood the point that Luke Fletcher made about Rent Smart Wales issuing 6,000 licences. I’ll make sure that somebody gives you the correct information here, but my recollection is that those 6,000 licences are to agents only, whereas I think Rent Smart Wales have some 200,000 properties on their books with licences. So, I think 6,000 is only a bit of what they do, not the whole of what they do.

The substantive part of the question, though, Chair, is about making sure that people get a licence in a timely manner. Actually, the variable there, I think, is not the licensing authority, it is the quality of the application. If someone submits an application that has the things that are needed, the licence should be issued, I think, very speedily. Given that four of the five things that people are asked to demonstrate in order to get a licence are things that they’ve got already, I hope that that will be not too difficult. There will be training, because, as you know, it is a prior condition of getting a licence that you have been through the training regime. The training regime will have equipped you to be able to produce the documents you need to produce, to submit them in an easy way and to get the licence as quickly as possible.

Where there have been delays in the Scottish scheme is where people have not submitted certificates, or they’ve submitted certificates that are out of date, or they haven’t been able to find all of the certificates they need. I think where there will be delays in the scheme, it’s more likely to be because applicants need more help than it will be because the regime itself isn’t able to cope with it. I do recognise that there is likely to be a bit of an initial hump—you know, that there will be a lot of applications in the beginning to process—and that’s why we made the provision that Luke asked me about a minute ago, so that existing businesses can continue to operate if there is a delay in the licence being provided to them.

You are right, by the way, I should have clarified that was a specific figure I was using. I'm going to put that down to baby brain. But I think it does illustrate—

Luke, could Sam come in?

Yes, of course.

On that point, Cabinet Secretary—and I welcome the acknowledgment of that initial surge of applications—are you content that because they are still able to operate without having received that licence, you don't need to do it on a geographical basis of starting in certain areas and rolling it out step by step to avoid a surge? Are you content that that lag period is sufficient?

I think Sam Kurtz is right, Chair, that there's more than one way of addressing that problem, and you could have had a rolling geographical introduction in order to mitigate that. But I think the way that the Bill does it is probably preferable. If you're operating already, you've submitted everything that you are required to submit within the timescale that's laid down, if the delay is on the part of the licensing authority, then you will be able to continue to operate until the licensing authority issues you with a licence.

Sam predicted the direction I was about to take with the questions there. On automation, is the Cabinet Secretary able to provide some examples of how we might see the system being automated? We took some evidence where there was some doubt cast on, for example, the use of AI in the process of the system, so we would be very keen to understand if the Cabinet Secretary has some examples you might be able to point to.

I think there are increasing examples of that, because this is a very rapidly developing world where many things are now automated in that way. Probably everybody here is familiar with when your car insurance runs out—I can tell you this from personal experience in the last few weeks. I have a very large number of e-mails reminding me that it's about to run out, and a large number of e-mails offering me alternatives to it. That's been an automated process, hasn't it? That hasn't been a person going through and checking. The system is automated and it provides those reminders. When it comes to reissuing licences, that's exactly how I would imagine this system will work. The system will automatically flag with you that your licence is coming up for renewal and you now need to do the things you need to do.

There are lots of examples that are analogous from other fields, Chair. In the health field, with which I'm familiar, there was something in the news just this morning about this, about the way that automation and artificial intelligence is used to look at scans. The news today was bowel cancer screenings, where now a machine as well as human eyes will look at the results of that screening and will tell you whether or not there is something that needs to be done. This has been the case in dermatology for a number of years now. If you have a dermatological scan, the computer will look at it, match it with all the other scans that it has and tell you if there is anything that needs to be done.

The most direct example is with the land registry, which has a system of this sort. It's a bit complicated, and I don't have baby brain as my excuse, but I will ask either Helen or Robbie to explain how that system works in the way that I see this system being able to draw on.

The land registry example is quite a good one for the scanning of documents. When you have a new housing development, they need a template deed, then all of the sales of individual plots are supposed to have a matching transfer deed. Up until fairly recently, humans were having to check those fairly complex legal documents against each other. The land registry have done some work with IT delivery partners to look at scanning those scanned transfer deeds, to convert the scanned PDFs to text that a machine can read, and then can compare the text of the deed for an individual plot against the precedent deed for the whole development, pick up any significant differences and flag those to be looked at. It's quite a direct example where it's looking at scanned documentation, looking at the wording and then flagging if there are concerns that need someone to look at in a bit more detail.

Thank you for that clarification. One final question from me, Chair; I can see the time is marching on. In terms of those one-off occasional accommodation providers, has there been any consideration about potential exemptions for them in the Bill? This is based on evidence we had from, for example, the Welsh Local Government Association, particularly in the case of Cardiff, where there are major events. Sometimes they can provide that extra relief for the accommodation sector, especially in rural areas as well, where accommodation is already sparse.

I see the point, Chair, but I think it’s a matter of principle for me that you can’t concede that, just because you are an occasional provider, the standards of safety that you can demonstrate are any less than they would be for anybody else. You may be turning up somewhere that only provides that accommodation very occasionally. I don't think you would argue that, in that case, it doesn't matter whether you have a gas certificate or an electricity certificate, just because it's occasional. It doesn't mean that you've got any less of a right to be safe. While I see the point, I don't think, actually, when you stand back from it—. If something were to go wrong in that premises, you couldn't imagine it being a sufficient excuse to say, ‘Oh well, it only opened every now and then.’

Diolch.

Jenny.

Do you want me to do the licensing scheme? I'm happy to do that.

I believe that is what you're down to do, Jenny, yes—licensing. No, sorry—enforcement.

Okay, moving on to enforcement. Fine. Obviously, this is what many of the witnesses were very keen to talk about. What discussions have you had with the WLGA and local authorities on the specific role that local authorities may play in enforcing the requirements of the Bill?

Just to be clear again, the Bill makes the Welsh Ministers responsible for this, and Welsh Ministers can, using certain powers, exercise that responsibility through others. The discussions we've had with the WLGA have been about the principle of that, rather than the operational detail of it. That is a bit of a dilemma when you're preparing a Bill, because we don't have a Bill. What if this committee were to decide not to support the principle of the Bill? There's a limit as a Minister, I think, to how far you can go in anticipating the legislature.

The discussions we've had with the WLGA have been about the Bill itself, the principle of it, and a potential role that they may play in enforcement. But it hasn't gone into the more specific and operational detail of it, because I think that's getting ahead of where you ought to be as a Minister, until you know, at least until you've got a Stage 1 vote in favour of the Bill. I think at that point it's legitimate for you to have more detailed discussions, because the Senedd has then approved the principle of the Bill. But until you've got that approval, I think there is a line somewhere that you shouldn't go beyond, and that's what I've been keen with the Bill team to observe: discussions about the principle, leaving the more specific operational detail until we know we've got a Bill to talk about.

Okay, fair enough, but nevertheless, there's no point having a Bill if we haven't got the capacity to enforce it. Some of the witnesses, and the witness we had from Mid Wales Tourism, in their written evidence they were saying that local authorities should have a statutory requirement to enforce it. One of the things that we learned along the way was that most local authorities are not the enforcer of the Rent Smart Wales operations, which was news to me, because Cardiff, Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan are outliers in that they do do the enforcement on behalf of Rent Smart Wales, whereas all the other local authorities seem to rely on Rent Smart Wales, and it’s a long way from Cardiff to Wrexham. So, I think it's really about how practically is it going to be possible to ensure that the Bill sticks.

I think there are many different ways in which the Welsh Ministers could agree with local authorities as to how that should be done. You could agree that every local authority will be its own enforcement authority. You could agree that there will be one lead authority that would do that job for Wales. I am anticipating more than I should here, but in this area, a regional approach might be the best one, because the nature of tourism is different in different parts of Wales, isn't it, in a way that longer term renting may not be. The concentrations of tourism may mean that it would be better done through a lead local authority working on behalf of others in a region facing the same sort of tourism. But that is all to be discussed and agreed with the WLGA, should the Welsh Ministers choose to exercise their responsibilities in that way.

One of the messages we got quite clearly from Councillor Huw Thomas was that the WLGA would object strongly to the idea of Visit Wales taking the enforcement role. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, but obviously that's something for future Ministers, unless you wish to comment on that.

Just to confirm to the committee that no decision has been made in this way. There is a respectable case for Visit Wales. At the moment, I would say local authorities are probably in the lead in terms of where the responsibility would best rest, but I wouldn't myself dismiss the idea that Visit Wales—. Visit Wales does have significant expertise and experience in the sector. It has pre-existing relationships and local knowledge, and it does deal with circumstances where engagement or compliance are challenging. It's a known and trusted brand. It has staff operating in every part of Wales.

I read what Councillor Thomas said to you. I've got a very high regard for Councillor Thomas, so I was a bit surprised at the strength with which he expressed that point of view. But he was here to speak on behalf of the WLGA and to make their case, so I understand that. We have not ruled out or ruled in either the WLGA or Visit Wales. They are both potential vehicles, albeit that if I was having to make a decision today or let you know where I think we are today, the WLGA is probably in the lead in our thinking.

Moving on, in your earlier scrutiny session with us on this, you talked about following what Ireland is doing in terms of being intelligence-led in how we do enforcement, and you also talked about the role of citizen feedback. I think one of the things that I'm taking away from this is that there's quite a big difference between those who are providing accommodation for families to take a holiday—whether it's a weekend, a week, a fortnight or whatever—and those who are attracted to a particular event. In Cardiff, we have lots of large-scale events, and they attract a rather different clientele a lot of the time. Some of them have a relationship with alcohol.

I think that it's also about, in a rural area, if one of your neighbours is renting a property for accommodation to visitors, everybody else in the community knows who that person is and where to find them, whereas the problem with these online organisations is who are the people who are responsible for the noise going on every weekend. I just wondered, in the enforcement role, how we accommodate some of the problems that we do get in urban areas, simply because we don't know everybody who owns a particular property.

I think there are a number of answers. None of these answers are the answer, but together I think they begin to address the issues that Jenny has raised. It was partly why I said in answer to an earlier question that a regional arrangement with a regional lead for a local authority might be the best one, because I agree with what the Member is saying, Chair, that the issues that might be faced in a summer holiday destination are different to the issues that are faced in a place where tourism is driven by major events and people coming for weekend breaks and so on. So, one answer is to think about how you organise the enforcement.

Secondly, if a place is advertised as being available as accommodation, then that advert will have to include the registration number for that property. So, if you are living on the same street and you want to know who is responsible for it, you will be able to look up the registration number, and from that you'll be able to see who the licence holder is as well. So, I think there will be a lot more information available to people so that they can themselves trace where responsibility lies.

And then the third point that I would make—I think you mentioned it, Jenny, in the question—is the role of citizens in this. Because citizens will also be an active part of this scheme, I think, in reporting on their own experience. So, it isn't just the person who is living there and who wants to know who is responsible for this property, who is the licence holder—you will know that now in future—but also there's access to all the things that people, who've been in those places for those holidays, themselves then leave on TripAdvisor, and all the other ways in which citizens now make their contribution to knowing whether accommodation is what it's purported to be when it is let. When you put all those things together, I think there will be a different level of ability for people to monitor, from a citizen's perspective as well as from the enforcement authority's perspective, the way in which all of this is working out.

Thank you. My last point is that, obviously, a large number of people who provide visitor accommodation are small businesses based in Wales, and we know who they are, largely. But we have also had evidence today from quite large multinational organisations. So, what consideration have you given to any practical challenges in enforcing against the visitor accommodation providers based outside Wales, particularly those online advertisers who I think are hostile to the idea of being responsible for the accuracy of their advertising, you'll be amazed to know?

Well, under this Bill, they will be made responsible for the accuracy of what they say, because they will have to have that registration number as part of any advertising that they carry out.

Now, Chair, just to say, as I said, again, this is not a Bill looking to trip anybody up who's making an honest mistake. If you've wrongly transcribed a couple of numbers when the things are being typed up, and that is pointed out to you and you put it right, then that's what the Bill hopes will happen. The aim of the Bill is to assist the industry to do the right thing. Where people inadvertently do the wrong thing, then the purpose of the Bill is to help them to get that right. If, however, there were online advertisers who persistently fail to provide what the Bill requires them to provide—and that is to say the registration number as part of the advert—then, in the end, you will move away from the education and persuasion end of the spectrum more to the enforcement end of the spectrum. Because consumers have a right to know that the accommodation that they are booking with has the licence that it requires, and the registration number is the route in for that to happen.

If those providers are anywhere else in the United Kingdom, if that is where they are based, then all the normal enforcement powers will be available wherever someone is. If someone is overseas, if they have no legal presence in the United Kingdom, then the prosecution dilemmas that this Bill would give rise to are no different to prosecuting offences under any other Bill in those circumstances. The main point is that the purpose of the Bill is to work with providers and with platforms to support compliance wherever possible, not to be trying to move in any speedy way towards prosecution. But if people, in the end, aren't willing to comply, then you've got to have a regime to deal with that.

Thank you.

Sam.

Thank you. I just want to come back on that point, because you'll remember, Cabinet Secretary, that in discussing this in the Chamber, I've raised that challenge around online platforms having the wrong information and then being liable for false advertising in that sense. Some of the evidence we've taken today is saying that that contravenes current general practice when it comes to this, where, actually, if they're notified of it, they have the ability to change it, but they shouldn't be held accountable for the wrong information that someone provides them.

In your evidence there to Jenny, I think there's a slight change in your response to what you gave me in the Chamber to what you've just given now. Is that a development over the last couple of weeks, that this has fleshed out a little bit more the Government's position?

I hope not, Sam.

It's a bit different to what it was a couple of weeks ago.

Well, I'm sorry. I apologise if that is the case, because I don't think the position of principle has changed. If you are an online platform and you are providing information to potential visitors in future in Wales, part of what you provide must be the registration number so that the visitor can go and check that you have the licence. But it was never the intention, as I say, that this was there to trip people up.

I think online platform providers do have a responsibility to make sure that the information they provide to potential visitors is accurate. But if it's not accurate for a reason that can be quickly put right, then that's what we would hope to happen. The Bill is designed to be helpful to people, to allow them to do the right thing as easily as possible. Nobody should believe that they are in danger of criminal prosecution for making a mistake. Criminal penalties are there for people who persistently and deliberately decline to meet their legal obligations.

Okay. So, from your perspective, then, and the discussions you've had with your Booking.coms, your Airbnbs, your booking platforms, rather than the actual accommodation provider themselves, but the booking platforms, are they content on your description of that process, or is there still a little bit of fear from them that, actually, what's being proposed here is slightly different to how it's being implemented in other areas?

Well, I think Jenny Rathbone was right when she said to you earlier that these are not organisations that readily want to accept new responsibilities, and they'd rather they didn't have to do it, but they are going to have to do it in Wales. We are very happy to go on having conversations with them to make sure that they can meet their obligations in a way that fits in with their model in the best way possible. But what they won't be able to do is escape their obligations.

Okay.

Can I just come in just to make it clear that the offence here is subject to the defence of a reasonable excuse? So, in section 47(1), there is that proviso. So, if what they have done is reasonable insofar as ensuring that the right information is available, they will not have committed an offence, even if they haven't done what they were supposed to have done under section 46, if you understand what I mean.

So, for example in that, then, Mrs Jones is on there giving the information, her finger slips and she puts a seven instead of an eight. Is that a reasonable excuse as to why the information is then advertised incorrectly on a booking platform?

Yes, it would be. So, if the online operator has been given the wrong information, and it looked like it was the correct information, then that would be—. There will be some obligation on them to make sure that they've got the right information within that test of reasonableness, but, yes, that's the kind of thing that we're envisaging.

Okay. Diolch. And then in terms of—. Sorry.

Alun.

I was just going to go on to the fitness for visitor accommodation standards. The standards that you've set out in the legislation seem to be pretty comprehensive, certainly to me, reading it. There's been a variable response from scrutiny, as you'd imagine. Are you confident, having seen the response to the published legislation, that you've got the balance right of capturing all the different standards you need in sufficient detail, without, potentially, putting too much on the face of the Bill?

Well, Chair, this is one of the ways in which the Bill has been designed, taking into account the views of the sector. And as I've said several times, what the sector has said to us is that they wanted a system that was going to be as simple and straightforward for them as possible. And for that reason, we decided to start with the things with which the industry would be most familiar already. So, four of the five specific requirements are things that they already have to do. They have to demonstrate that they are doing them for the purposes of obtaining a licence, but they ought not to be offering accommodation now if they don't have those things already in place.

There is only one additional requirement, and that's a requirement that we think about 75 per cent of the industry is probably doing anyway. But they don't currently have a requirement, a legal requirement, to have public liability insurance, and they will, as a result of this Bill, if they are to obtain a licence. But by starting with the things that providers ought to do already, and are most familiar with, that's how we have tried to take account of the advice from the sector about a licensing regime that can be made to work in as light a touch a way as possible.

So, with the balance that's set out in the Bill, you remain confident that you're in the right place.

Well, Chair, I will want to read your report, because the last time I was here, Jenny Rathbone asked me about a number of other possible conditions that you could have in a licence, and I will very seriously wait to see whether you conclude that there are things that should be part of the conditions of obtaining a licence that are not there in the current proposals. But I haven't reached a view on that, because I will wait to see—. I was the first person you'd heard from at that point, and you will have heard from many others since, so I'll wait to see what conclusions you come to.

Okay. In terms of the structure of the requirements that are set out in the Bill, one of our witnesses, earlier today, suggested that perhaps a way of delivering what you've just actually described, in terms of the simplicity, would be, rather than to set them out in a separate scheme, to integrate them into the Visit Wales grading scheme. Is that something you've considered?

Well, I've had discussions with people who speak for Visit Wales, as to how the licensing regime will have an integrated effect with what they already do. And their view, when I spoke to them, Chair—. I think it went like this: in future, they would never offer a grading to any premises that didn't have a licence. So, that's the first thing: if you haven't got a licence, you're not going to get a Visit Wales grading. But if they are grading somewhere, then they wouldn't expect a premises to redemonstrate to them the things that they've already demonstrated in order to get a licence. And at the moment, they probably do have to demonstrate some of those things before they get a Visit Wales grade. So, that will simplify the position there. And then the third thing that they said to me is that when they are working with a visitor provider who is looking to get a Visit Wales grade, they will be encouraging people to go beyond the requirements that are there to get a licence, to do some of the more quality things, and that you would get that signalled by getting a grade from Visit Wales.

So, the account they gave to me I thought gave me quite a lot of confidence that they've already thought about how they will integrate those two regimes. And I was encouraged by that fact. Because I know I've said this—I think I've said it on the floor, I've said it in front of committee—the future for the industry in Wales is to be a quality industry. And that's how Visit Wales would use the licence as a basis to move the industry further in that direction.

Could I just add on that? It's probably fair to say that self-catering is a relatively small part of Visit Wales's workload. They obviously grade plenty of types of accommodation that aren't in the scheme, so for those—

But could be in future.

They could be in the scheme in future, but what the Cabinet Secretary was describing was obviously for the bit that is covered by the licensing scheme.

Yes, I think the witness this morning was coming from the point of view of the operator rather than the consumer. And I very much agree with the Cabinet Secretary in terms of his view of this. The point I put to witnesses this morning is that I am a consumer of self-catering accommodation, and if I want to take particularly my children to stay somewhere, I want to know that there are minimum standards, and that everyone there who I'm looking at meets those minimum standards. So, I very much agree with the thrust of the legislation. From my point of view, it's about how do you deliver this in a painless and efficient way. One of the ideas that the WLGA put to us as a committee was the imposition of a fit-and-proper-person test, which exists in some fields already. Now, you've decided against that, and I think the committee would be interested to hear your reasoning for that.

Well, Chair, I noticed that the WLGA put that point to the committee. I've asked my team whether any of the other bodies that have contributed to the consultation, and so on, were similarly persuaded, and I think the answer I've had is that we haven't heard that from anybody else. It is a rather specific view of the WLGA. And the police, in their contribution to the consultation, positively argued against a fit-and-proper-person test for this licensing purpose. They felt that they already had what they needed in relation to individuals. What this Bill aims to do is to focus on the standards of the accommodation, rather than the person who is providing the accommodation. And, in a way, there are some special reasons why you would think that that was the right thing to do in relation to self-contained self-catering accommodation, because the visitor accommodation provider may be someone you never meet at all. In many, many self-catering accommodation outlets in Wales, you turn up, there's a key arrangement on the door, you let yourself in, you have the time you're there, and you never meet the person. They may be many, many miles away from it. It's different in that way from long-term renting, when you're much more likely to have an ongoing relationship with the landlord. That isn't the way that this industry operates. It's very difficult to think about where you would pitch a proportionate test in those circumstances. And for all of those reasons, as I say, the view of the WLGA wasn't one that was shared by others.

Okay. The evidence from the sector is that there's actually a much closer relationship between the operator and the property. But we won't pursue that this afternoon.

In terms of the sorts of standards that you're looking at, it's a single national scheme, and that has all the different advantages that you've already outlined, and I think the committee is probably, on balance, in agreement with those conclusions. But one of the issues that you do pick up from having a more locally based scheme, a local government based scheme, is different issues that would be of relative importance. Jenny's spoken about some of the issues that she has in her constituency in the centre of Cardiff with, for example, waste management services and the rest of it. Now, that wouldn't be such a major issue, potentially, with Sam Kurtz across in Pembrokeshire; you'd have a different sort of relative importance there. So, are you confident that having a single national scheme can actually capture the standards that are important for each individual location, and which would be able to capture the sorts of issues that you'd want to capture in the national scheme?

Well, there's a debate to be had here, Chair. I see the point Alun Davies is making, that issues will be different in different parts of Wales, but if you designed a scheme of that sort, you would end up closer to the Scottish scheme, with local authorities having the responsibility, and that really does cut right against some of the advice that we were getting from the sector and which we have attempted to respond to in the Bill, which, as I say, is for simplicity and straightforwardness. So, it may be that it isn't possible to capture all of those more local variations in this way, but if you did, I think that you'd lose another set of desirable objectives and, in the end, in making a judgment between those two things, local flexibility, responsiveness and so on, as against simplicity, understandability, speed of licences being issued and so on, we've come down in favour of the one and there are some losses, inevitably, in the other way. I think that Dylan may tell you that there are other ways of responding to those things.

Well, just to say that that is the policy, there’s no doubt about that, but there is scope to do this. So, in the regulations, if we were to introduce new conditions, then there is scope. If there was a problem in a particular area, then that can be done. There can be a differential application of the conditions under the Bill as it stands, although that is not the intention, as the Cabinet Secretary says, for the reasons that he set out.

That's useful to know. I'm content.

Could I just go back a step on the booking sites? I heard your very strong defence of the provision within the legislation that they will have to do it. The evidence we took was that the liability that that would expose the directors of those booking sites to may well be a liability too far for them, and actually they might withdraw from the Welsh market because it is not a liability to which they are exposed in other markets and other jurisdictions that have a licensing scheme. Have you had that argument put to you and what is your view of it, Cabinet Secretary?

I would take it with a very significant pinch of salt. I do not believe that just needing to be accurate in the information you offer to the public is a reason why someone would take their business away from Wales and lose all of the profits they make in the process.

No, I think the point that they were making was the liability that the directors are exposed to is a liability that they have no control over. So, from a company point of view and a corporate point of view, they couldn’t expose the directors to that liability.

If it was something over which they had no control, then they would have the defence that Dylan outlined earlier, because it would not be reasonable to be liable for something over which you had no control. As I’ve said repeatedly, the Bill is designed to help people to meet their obligations. Provided you can see that people are trying to put something right, if it was wrong, then nobody is going to end up prosecuted under this legislation.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Sam.

Thank you, Chair. Building on—. I jumped in slightly early on the questions that the Chair has just posed and off the back of Jenny Rathbone's questions, but if we're looking at complaints, there's only one reference to complaints in the Bill, and section 22 provides that the statement of information will set out

'how complaints can be made to the Welsh Ministers if a visitor is concerned that a condition of the licence has been breached.'

Can you set out how you envisage the complaints procedure process working?

Yes, Chair. So, if you are a visitor accommodation provider, under this Bill, you will have obligations to make information available to the person who is making the booking. You will have to do that on a minimum of two occasions. When the booking is made, you will have to provide the person who is making the booking with information, and one of the things you will have to let people know about is how they can make a complaint, if a complaint is necessary. Then, when you arrive at the premises at which you are staying, the Bill will require the accommodation provider to have a pack of information or somebody there, and that must also set out to people how you would make a complaint. So, I think it will be very easy for someone who feels a need to make a complaint to know how that is to be done.

The complaint will be made to the Welsh Ministers, as the licensing authority, and then it will be for the licensing authority to decide whether the complaint is actually a complaint that is relevant to the licensing conditions, because a complaint that the rotisserie wasn't working wouldn't be captured by the licence requirements that we have set out. So, the first thing you've got to know is whether this is a complaint that's legitimately about the licence itself. If it is, then in the way I've described, the first thing you would expect the licensing authority to do is to let the accommodation provider know that and give them a chance to put it right, and that's what you would expect to happen. And you only reach the further reaches of a complaints procedure when people have had that opportunity and failed to take advantage of it to put right what should be put right.

Yes, I think if this strayed into criticism and complaints around the tog rating of a duvet then that's moving away from what the principle—

Absolutely.

Yes, understood. And then if you could elaborate a little bit more on the practical effect around section 42 in such a way as to explain how a visitor can expect a refund if a breach has been determined.

I might ask others to make sure that you've got the full information here, but the licensing regime by itself does not give you your money back. If there's been something that has not met the conditions of the licence, that's not how you get money back. Now, in the real world, I imagine that someone who has a complaint of that sort will have a discussion with the accommodation provider and come to some arrangement with them. But if that wasn't possible, then the way in which this would be finally resolved, to get your money back, you would have to go to court, you would have to use your private law remedies to demonstrate that there had been a failure to deliver the contract that you have with the accommodation provider. That's where the licence does become relevant, because if you were able to demonstrate in front of a court of law that the licence conditions had been breached and that the licensing authority has upheld that complaint, then that will become a material fact in your favour in arguing in front of a court that you should get your money back. I think it's a very remote contingency indeed that that's how these complaints would finally be resolved. But it isn't as simple as saying, 'You've breached the licence regime, you get your money back.' That's not what the Bill sets up.

Can you provide an explanation as to why that's not what the Bill provides?

I'm going to make sure now that you get a proper answer.

Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Yes, so, in the way that the Cabinet Secretary said that the process is not within the Bill to receive a refund if a breach of the licence has been deemed—it's to go through the court process—why has that decision been made that a refund would not be direct, if there's a breach?

I think, essentially, because that is the private relationship between the visitor accommodation provider and the visitor. What the licensing regime is doing, as a matter of public law, is essentially saying that you must impose these, you must meet these requirements. So, we have treated the two things separately, but there is a connection between them, as the Cabinet Secretary said.

The intention behind section 42 was, firstly, to incentivise good behaviour in the same way as the licensing regime does. And, secondly, to the extent that there would be any doubt as to the contractual remedy that an individual has, this just makes it clear insofar as the fitness for visitor accommodation is concerned, with the aim being that, because this is an explicit requirement in all cases, if there is a breach, then the visitor accommodation provider should understand that they wouldn't realistically have a defence to it, and would be incentivised to make some sort of financial contribution or refund to the visitor. But we wouldn't normally expect that to be something that—. If, as the licensing authority, you were getting into that sort of level of detail—so, going back to the general thrust of the policy insofar as simplicity and the administration of it all is concerned—it would be a different matter if the licensing authority was then determining, 'Right, well, for this reason you should get 20 per cent of your payment back.' That was never our intention.

Okay.

It's worth drawing out the distinction there between the things that are part of fitness for visitor accommodation, which have been included under that section, because that is to what they relate, and the other licence conditions, some of them—for example, that you have to be registered—are less directly relevant to the visitor's stay and their experience of that accommodation. So, yes, the general fitness condition is defined with reference to the risk to the visitor, or the risk to the immunity of the visitor, and so it kind of encompasses the question of the effect on the visitor's stay, where there are other general licence conditions that don't necessarily capture that in the same way, and it's right that they should be considered as part of the licence process, but the relationship to an individual stay for an individual visitor is a bit different.

Okay, thank you.

I'm sorry, can I just—?

Go on, Dylan.

I didn't mean as a matter of public law, but as a matter of statutory requirements. Sorry.

Okay. Thank you. And then finally, from me, trying to draw out what I've seen as a slight contradiction, Cabinet Secretary, off of the back of a comment you made at a previous committee, where you mentioned that

'the number of people who will leave the industry as a result of this Bill is very, very small.'

Earlier today in your session, you've said that because of the exponential growth in the self-catering self-contained units, there is documented evidence of problems with it. How can those two points be rationalised together—'I don't think that there are going to be many leaving', but, 'There could be quite a few problems within the sector as well'?

Well, I think the way it's reconciled is this: those people who aren't able to demonstrate that they are meeting their current legal obligations either will have to make sure that they can, and surely that is what most of them will want to do and will be able to do—. If you're not able to do it, and you're not willing to do it, then you probably ought—well, no, not 'probably', you ought not to be operating anyway.

So, the Scottish experience was not that people, when they were asked to demonstrate that they were meeting their obligations, said, 'Oh, we can't do that; we're leaving.' It took them longer to do it than the licensing authorities had expected, but people then did it because that's what they are already obliged to do. I think the question I was answering last time, Chair, was less in relation to that point and more in relation to whether or not the new obligations of the Bill, particularly the fact that you have to pay a fee in order to get a licence—would that be off-putting to people. I still contend, really, that I don't think a £75 fee is going to be the thing that makes people decide whether or not to stay in the industry. So, I think the number of people who will leave the industry because of the requirements of this Bill will be very small.

If there are people who are not able to demonstrate that they're meeting their existing obligations and decide at that point that, 'If I've got to do all that, if I've got to have a gas certificate and an electricity certificate and show that I've got a fire alarm—that's all too much for me', well, I'm not sure that I completely regret the fact that they've decided to earn a living in a different way.

One final point before I bring Julie in for the final set of questions. We took evidence from the Scottish experience, and they highlighted the expansion of the black market in holiday accommodation that was affected or brought under the jurisdiction of the legislation and the licensing scheme. Are you concerned about that potential effect here in Wales, and have you or your officials given any consideration to that? Because they've offered us the examples, the Scottish witnesses, of this growth, in the Edinburgh market in particular, so is there a concern for you?

I think the Edinburgh market is so different to what we have in Wales that it wouldn't be comparable. Edinburgh expects to raise £50 million a year from the visitor levy in that city alone, and we expect that if the whole of Wales, every local authority, decided to introduce a visitor levy, it would raise £33 million altogether. The conditions are so different, and, actually, I think that the requirements to register and the requirements to have a licence would make it very difficult for people to operate in a black market way, because if someone is operating without a licence, and people go and visit that property and leave comments on one of the platforms we've been talking about, about the nature of their stay and what happened there, that will become visible very quickly.

So, I just think the visibility of the scheme means that the chances of you being able to operate under the radar in Wales, when you've got to be registered and you've got to have a licence, and people who live nearby will be able to find the evidence as to whether you are actually doing that, I actually think it'll be very difficult for that to happen. In a big city like Edinburgh, where there are so many visitors and so many people coming and going all the time, then I can see there may be different liabilities, but I don't think they're replicated in Wales.

Okay, thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Julie.

Yes, thank you very much, Chair. Sam has already referred to what you said in previous evidence that the number of people who leave the industry would be very small. According to the Welsh Government's 'Wales Tourism Business Barometer', published in October, in the self-catering sector, many businesses are struggling to meet the 182-day rule and may see their costs rise beyond what they consider worth while to operate. Do you think that that, along with the provisions we've been talking about today, make it more likely that people may leave?

Sixty per cent of businesses in Wales meet the 182-day rule, Chair. That is more than the industry predicted. It's a higher figure than the figure of businesses reaching that threshold before the threshold was introduced. I think, in a small way—it will be a small way—the Bill will bolster that part of the sector, because if there are some small providers who decide to exit the market in the way that we were discussing earlier, we know that there are providers who have spare capacity who will be able to take that up. But in a way, that is a separate issue to this Bill. The costs in this Bill are modest and I don't think will make a difference between whether or not someone decides to stay in the industry or not.

Thank you. Have you looked at special concerns related to businesses, small businesses in rural areas, when you've been drawing up this Bill?

Yes, of course, Chair, in the way that we discussed earlier. But the fact that you are a small business and operating in a rural locality is not an argument, for me, for not meeting the basic standards that someone visiting you has a right to expect.

Thank you. That's all.

Thank you, Julie. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for the evidence you've given us this morning—this afternoon now, sorry; I've been in this room too long. Thank you to your officials as well. A record will be sent of the evidence that you've given orally this afternoon. If there are any concerns or observations that you want to make, please make them to the clerking team. That will be the official record of the evidence you have given and, obviously, that will inform the final report of this committee to be debated at Stage 1 proceedings in the new year. Thank you all very much.

Thank you, Chair. Pardon me, I probably should have said earlier on that I was grateful for the opportunity to write to you after the first session, and I hope that some of the additional information that we provided then has been helpful to the committee in coming to your final views.

Thank you very much, very helpful. Thank you.

Could I have a motion to move into private session? Thank you.