Transcript

just had to clarify one or two issues before we begin. So if everyone is ready to start, then I will read the welcome and webcasting notice. So this meeting is being held in the Dean of Guild courtroom in city chambers, high street in Edinburgh and virtually by teams. It will be filmed for live and subsequent broadcast via the council's website. The council is a data controller under the general data protection regulation and data protection act 2018. We broadcast council meetings to fulfill our public task obligation to enable members of the public to observe the democratic process. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the council's published policy. Generally, the public seating areas will not be filmed. However, by entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you should be aware that you may be recorded and images and sound will be stored as above. Children will not be filmed, although sound will be heard. Members are reminded that the cameras are activated by the sound system and that they must switch microphones on when speaking and off when finished speaking. I've been asked if at the end of questions and the report that we're about to consider that we might have a five-minute adjournment and I'm going to go ahead with that unless members indicate that there is no need for it. So, over to the clerk, thank you.

• Thanks, Congener. Item one is the order of business. There's no change to the order as circulated for this meeting and just to note the understanding order 22, 16, each item is a 40-minute time limit. Decisions of interest, item 2.1. Do members of anything particularly are financial or non-financial, please? Thank you. As this is an additional meeting, there are no items in sections four, five or six. There's no deputation request being received for this meeting. So, item 7.1 is the report by the detective director of place on the short-term light license and policy temporary exemptions. Andrew Mitchell is here to speak to the reports and there are amendments circulated from the SNP Liberal Democrat and Green Groups.
• Okay, over to Mr. Mitchell, please.
• Thank you, Congener. Good morning. So, the report before committee deals with the council's approach to template exemptions which members will recall were included within the original policy when the committee made that decision back in September 2022. The report sets out some concerns in terms of the availability of accommodation and the burden of the template exemption scheme as it currently operates in relation to specifically home-witting and home-sharing. The report sets out four members to consider. First of all, the director is intending to revise the application form for home-witting and home-sharing template exemptions to simplify it and make it easier for applicants to navigate the re-round. The two substantive issues for the committee to consider are first of all, the question of the fee. It has been suggested that the current fee for the majority of template exemptions which is £250 is unduly expensive. So, the report is recommending your trial over the summer period of reducing that fee to £120. Any financial pressures would be contained by the directorate. The fee would only be available for home-witting and home-sharing or home-witting separate or home-sharing separate. It wouldn't be available for secondary letting. The report sets out reasons why it is unlikely that in any event, template exemptions would be attractive for the secondary lighting market or the fact that one category of secondary lighting is likely to come to HMO market which already has the equivalent fee in place. The report then takes members through the previous decision to attach standard and mandatory conditions to any template exemption granted. The report recommends the relaxation of some of the mandatory conditions which I'll set out and I'm happy to go through them as detailed members would find that useful. The report recommends retaining some mandatory conditions which are the core conditions to ensure safety and the report leaves for members to determine whether or not mandatory condition 5 or 15 would be appropriate to apply. The report also recommends that the current additional conditions with the council adult should be retained on the basis that they don't impose any financial burden upon anyone seeking a template exemption and would be in any event good practice for MD operating in that particular market. So with that, happy to take any questions of my colleagues as well. Happy to assist members. Thank you. Any other officers want to make comments on the report before we begin questions? I have a couple I appreciate before I bring a committee in. If I may, if the committee will indulge me. Sorry, Peter, are you wish to speak? Words, I just want to add a bit of context around this. At the heart of this report is something that's fairly simple. Something that's temporary and it's the lie time for us to assess what happens over this year festival. To prepare for the committee review, which is later this year. So it is trying to address a short-term issue. I have good comments whether it's perception or not. The answer is we don't know. But what we do know is what we're proposing is in the context of the greater scheme of things actually quite harmless. It's been said to me that the French have been in the papers with comments around the biggest and best festival ever. And secondly, about the lack of a suitable accommodation. I read those articles again over the weekend. And obviously we have no control about what the French says in the press or anybody says in the press. But they are actually talking about two different things. Yes, one is about the biggest and best. That means more demand. What the fundamental issue is, which is not particularly mentioned in the report, is the cost of accommodation or lack thereof in the context of demand pushes prices up. So what we're trying to do is make it that little bit easier. And I think obviously there is concerns about the implications of this. But what the report points out is temporary, is a little bit the how in the circumstances for this summer. With no lasting impact, a members can decide what they want to do in the longer term. This year, once we have done full consultation and what you want to do moving forward on a permanent basis. Thank you. I can start off with a first question. And my questions are around the reasons why this report is with us. And my concerns are in relation to both legal risk and legal challenge and evidence or the lack thereof. Can I ask, because this committee has always looked for substantive evidence before, it makes changes to policy. There are several unattributed references in the report. For example, at 4.6, concerns have been expressed. And it says it has been reported and at 4.7, it has also been suggested. Can you, or can someone please attribute these comments or observations to where they are coming from? I can maybe start on the colleagues of any addition. Certainly, I've attended meetings with the executive director and indeed government ministers. We are the organisations responsible for supporting the festivals in the city and indeed the French society have repeatedly expressed concern that the volume of accommodation available for this coming year and the cost at which it is available is a concern to them. Those concerns have been widely reported in the press. And it's based on those concerns that the director have decided to bring forward the report as a trial to see if what our, as Peter has said, relatively limited measures would help. Thank you. My follow-up to that, though, is a legal point. Even though this is a temporary proposal, given the committee's recent experience of judicial reviews, what impact do you think changing policies and fees based on indirect, one-sided evidence would have on the risks of legal challenge? I think, again, I'll maybe start and call the committee, giving his own view, but I suppose the director's position is that what's been proposed is a limited measure as a trial. The likely challenge is not considered to be significant. We are reducing the burdens upon business. We are reducing the fees. Therefore, it's somewhat difficult to see what would motivate somebody to challenge this temporary measure, given that we've committed to review it, going through the summer as part of a wider view. As a general rule of thumb, the higher risk comes from, if you're imposing new burdens or new fees upon people without consultation, whether that's what the report recommends, is the temporary relaxation which was in the ambit of what the council could reasonably do as a trial, and what the committee would be asked later this year to reflect on that and reflect on whether it had worked and whether it had achieved the same or whether it had been any unforeseen consequences. Thank you, Mr. Mayes, would you like to comment? Yeah, thank you. Convenor Andrew's obviously commented on the likelihood of challenge and I would agree that the likelihood of challenge would appear fairly slim in terms of the relevant legal requirements. There is a requirement for consultation to such an extent as the authority considers appropriate when reviewing of making a policy and at least to temper the exemptions. The position is I understand it and as appears to be proposed in terms of the report with reference, you know, about 4.9. Andrew, I'm taking into account Peter's comments as it is proposed as a trial linked to the review of policy which is due to take place and therefore may be characterised as a component of a policy review rather than the outcome of a policy review and itself. Now, obviously, there is a risk of challenge but the comments that Andrew made are certainly nothing but I would disagree with in terms of the likelihood and the context in which the proposal is made, may at least be as lawful as a component of a policy review which will be subject to proper and full consultation and due of course and importantly, obviously consultation must take place at a time before a final decision is made as to the policy. Thank you, I can go to committee never questions. Councillor Mater you had your hand up first. Thank you. Thank you, Covina. I suppose I got question just about time periods and definitions. We've said this is for the summer period. One of the things that will be a nose of concern to some people is if you list a temporary exemption, obviously, will it be clear, can we be clear about what the summer period contains and also on the application form, will it make very clear which six week period is being applied for? So we answered your second question, yes. President, they can apply for any period up to six weeks in any 12 months period and that would be provided the apply for that or the same application form then that would be for that. I think in practical terms, the trial would be for from now until when the committee next review the policy which we're committed to doing so ahead of October 2024. So the trial would be that period and in order to ensure consistent approach, it would simply be for any exemption granted in that period between the start of if the committee agreed it and when the committee next determined that issue, if that makes sense, to avoid any complaints about I got it for this period but because I'm two weeks later, I'm paying a higher fee. So in order to minimize that risk or to minimize the risk of inconsistencies, that's how it would be applied at the committee on mind, particularly.
• You wish to come back, Ashmore?
• I do wish to come back. I think from what you've then just said there, Mr Mitchell, this is going to extend until that October review. I think it probably needs to be quite clear because I think there's possibly a greyer of what happens if someone applies on the beginning of September, puts in a temporary exemption for Christmas. Will they be, which is going to be prior to that review, when will they know what the temporary exemption is? If we're saying this is temporary and the justification for that is to sort of test this over the summer period and we're going to make a decision about going forward to deal with that issue of potential and fairness that someone tests it and we haven't reviewed it. I think we need to know what the stop date is when we're making this decision today and make that clear. Is that possible to do?
• I think the stop date would be the committee meeting of September, I can't remember if it was September, October, but that's when the director would be next bringing back the wider policy review and hopefully we assure committee of what we're doing is and that regard is consistent with how through every year the council will review its fees. So if you apply before the new fees kick in, then you pay last year's fees. If you apply after the new fees kick in, you pay this year's fees and we're just applying the same consistent so if the committee makes this decision today, anybody who applies after today would pay the revised fee up to the point at which the committee then next determines the fees.
• Is that clear? Councilor, how are you happy with that?
• Yes.
• I think so.
• Thank you, Councillor Ray.
• Thank you, can I have a number of questions? Any questions? But first I'd like to point out Peter Worton. I understand when you say that this is going to be the biggest festival ever, but Peter, they do say that every year? It's kind of their pet. So, I take that with a pinch of salt. My first question is, if we go ahead with these exceptions, how do we guarantee that nobody in the city will be evicted in order to do this?
• So, in practical terms, it's for home letting a home sharing, therefore it shouldn't affect private rented markets. The temporary exemptions are highly unlikely to be commercially viable for the vast majority of the secondary market. If you have an each more license, then you would have to apply for an annual short-term work license. We are aware of the risk. We are obviously aware of concerns. And if somebody is inappropriately evicted in terms from the secondary lighting market, which is not related to today's decision, then you would happily look at that in terms of the fitness of that landlord.
• Councillor Ray, again?
• So, there is a risk.
• This report, no. There is a more general risk. Even if you did nothing today, there is still a risk. Secondary, temporary exemptions already exist for secondary lighting. The committee has previously made that decision. So, this report doesn't change that risk in terms of people who are renting the property, who may inappropriately be asked to leave the property during the summer. That the report today doesn't change that risk. This is relating to home-letting and home-sharing in practical terms, as generally people who are either renting their house whilst they choose to absent themselves in the city, or renting at a bedroom.
• Councillor Ray, you have another question?
• Yeah, my next question is for Jerry, because I'm sorry, I couldn't really understand here properly. If the proposal is to reduce fees for home-letting and sharing a note for secondary lighting, is the chance of a legal challenge from those undertaking secondary lighting higher?
• Well, in terms of the likelihood of a challenge or the possibility of a challenge, that sector would appear to be the one which would be affected, if they are arguably having to pay more than the home-letting home-sharing sector. So if there was to be a challenge then, that's the most likely source of it. However, I think for the reasons explained by Andrew, it's considered that there is not a high likelihood of a legal challenge from that sector. Mr Mitchell?
• But given that that sector has made a festival-letting part of their campaign from the beginning against any regulation in short-term let alone regulation in home-sharing, does not then increase the danger of yet another judicial review? Because I'm really concerned about that. And I'm concerned that if we make any concession on the festival, that they will take that opportunity and it's a real worry for us.
• Do you wish to respond to that, too? And then I'll ask Mr Mitchell to add.
• I suppose all I can say is that I've highlighted that relevant legal provisions and the analysis of risk around the likelihood of a challenge has been set out by Andrew. The proposal has made, as considered, up to be lawful in the context of part of a policy review and relation to which consultation will take place before any final decisions meet. Mr Mitchell?
• Sorry, just in turn. The report at 4.10 and 4.11 addresses that specific issue. So it's highly unlikely that secondary-letting will want a temporary exemption for six weeks. They are, by definition, operating on a commercial basis throughout the year. So why would they want that temporary exemption for six weeks only? There are other options there for them. The other section on the secondary-letting market, which may be addressed at temporary exemption as those which have an each-more license and the fee already exists for them to have 120-pound annual license on the basis that the vast majority of the checks the council will do will already have been done when they're granted an each-more license, so it's difficult to see where the disadvantage is for the secondary-letting market when the majority of them arguably won't be interested in that a temporary exemption and what the section is, the fee is equivalent to which they already have the option.
• So, Councillor Ray, do you have any other questions on something different before I bring in other Councillors? No, in that case, can I move to Councillor Mathisquilla, please?
• Thank you, Counvina. One of my questions has been extensively answered. You'll be pleased to hear that. I have a couple of questions as well, and I'll just ask them. So my first question has to do with the condition 15, the insurance, the liability. So if we, I know there's not a position in the report and we're going to make our own proposal here, but my question is if something happens, if we agreed, let's start this in the other way, if we agreed to exempt condition 15, would the council be liable for any issues? Or if we go ahead and ask for condition 15, is it on the applicant to get an insurance? I hope I made sense, sorry, if it wasn't.
• Thank you, Councillor. So as it stands, mandatory condition 15 requires the hold on of any license, or in this case, any type of exemption to have appropriate buildings, insurance, and public liability insurance. So that's what they're currently required to do, and the liability would be their liability or their insurance liability if a problem occurred and somebody claimed against that.
• Thank you. Can I come back with a couple more questions?
• Yes, certainly.
• Okay, so that's one, the other one has to do, I'm going back to what Councillor Moore asked about the timing, because I didn't really understand. If someone applies now to have an exemption at Christmas, and obviously after the review, what will happen? So I couldn't understand, thank you.
• So we would apply the same rules as we apply, with any other type of license, once granted, that's done. So if you're granted in the period of the trial, you would be with what are our conditions, the committee, the committee, I agree today. If you apply after the committee review them, then you would pay the new fee, so it doesn't seem to be much, Catherine may have a better sense than I have, but we're not getting that large number of people applying hugely in advance for temporary exemptions for later in the year, or internationally, they seem to be applying fairly much as and when they need them.
• Thank you, Councillor Scanlon.
• Hi, good morning. In total, we've had just over 200 temporary exemption requests, and they are for the summer period so far. We don't normally accept any applications more than six months in advance, and if they did apply in the summer, being in mind, they only allowed a period of up to six weeks. If they take six weeks, they wouldn't be eligible to get Christmas anyway, and if they take four weeks at the festival, that would leave them two weeks, which would have to be used by the end of the 31st of December. But in theory, they would get the discounted rate, and that would allow them to operate in December, which is what we do for all licensed applications anyway. Thank you.
• Thank you.
• Thank you.
• Are there any other questions, Councillor Graham?
• I have several questions, can you hear? I want to start by, at 1.1.1, we're seeing this concerns, and I mean, it's not really backed up by evidence, apart from a lot of amplification from certain sections of the cultural sector. And what we are being asked to do with no public consultation, and highlighted in 4.2, 63% of the respondents to our own surveys saying that they were not opposing exemptions, so we seem to be casting aside what the residents, especially in the city centre, have expressed, and we have reassured them about, because licensing now takes place and we've assured them that they'll have more understanding of who's living in theirs there. And just because this is just for a six week period, doesn't mean that the concerns that these residents have still exist. So, how is that going to be countered as my first question?
• So, in practical terms, I mean, I've given you a previous explanation as to where the concerns have come to, and they've sent the abutant meetings, including the Council leader, where such concerns have been expressed. To the Council leader, two ministers, about the pressure upon the sectors of the report, there's a response to that, and it's supposed to matter for members to decide whether or not you're persuaded by the arguments put forward. Taking the percentage of consultation to some extent, the committee's already done that. If you hint back to September 2022, the committee decided to put in place temperatures despite those consultation results. So, in effect, the committee had already decided to put in place that we are recommending as a proportionate step the relaxation of some of these conditions are reductionists who use a proportionate measure over the summer to see if it has an impact in some of the concerns, and the committee would then come back to that issue in the autumn and decide whether or not the concerns which, you know, certainly, you know, the director are aware of, whether or not they have any unintended consequences of this proposed relaxation.
• Councillor Graham.
• Thank you, Commander. My second question is at 4.5, we mentioned school holiday period. Which school holiday period are we defining because Edinburgh schools are back long before the festivals finish? So, there doesn't seem to be a correlation there, which is a very short question. 4.6, as well. Is it not the case for the burgeoning hotel sector that we, in the building of at least five, six hotels, and the expansion in the hotel sector, is actually taking up a large amount of the, will be providing a large amount of the accommodation that's needed during the August period. And the other question about in 4.7, is where we, where it states that there are thousands of potential beds in guest house in the hotel market being used for homelessness. My understanding is that in March this year, there was just over 500 households, unfortunately, very unfortunately, in this sector. But how does that equate to thousands? How many thousands? That's a very, very loose term for such an important report. So, the section of the report is intended to give members a flavour of some of the pressure. Certainly, if you look at the information for housing, homelessness and fair work, my recollection of the report's other significant numbers of temporary accommodation being used for people who are either homeless, people who are either asylum seekers, or people who have come from Ukraine, and that report's within the Housing Homeless and Fair Work Committee sets out very clear those concerns and the risks they're after. I suppose what that section of the report's simply intended to do is to give some narrative of some of the overall pressures facing the city in terms of accommodation. I'm sorry, I don't have any expertise in terms of the number of hotels and cities to be able to address that particular point. But certainly, I can go back to the point of any correspondence that I've had with any of the festival sector, the point out that most accommodations may be available at the cost and the availability. It's the two issues that they are expressing concern, and this report is a limited measure recommending a trial of something that may help alleviate some of those pressures. Thank you. Does that answer your questions? Can't scream, do you want to come back on any of those? Okay, certainly. Can't slack hold on? Thank you, thank you. I think the school holiday period is in that mix in terms of, certainly, for part of the festival. The schools locally are often in the surrounding areas that are all for central part of that period. Okay, well, let's go to Councillor Coor Lill. And then, if you have further questions, we can come back to Councillor Graham. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Councillor Graham. I like to have a good base of data when we're making decisions like this. 4.9 suggests that if we accept this trial, a comparison could be made with the last summer to see if there is an increase in temporary exemptions. Obviously, last summer, there was no STL licensing system. So, my question is, how can we say that there will be a comparison before we've given this our new STL licensing system a fair shake? The licensing system has been in effect since October 2022. There will have been a limited number of new operators who'd have sought exemptions or licenses last year. We know what numbers have applied up until now. And if any changes are made, we can then compare what was in the system before that and what was in the system after that. And then, it would be a matter for members to decide, I suppose, based on advice in October, whether or not there'd been any measurable change in the number of temporary exemptions coming forward to that period. Thank you, if I could follow that one up. The licensing scheme last summer, I wasn't aware of any pressures coming forward to this committee to respond to that then. I'm just concerned how that's suddenly become an issue now then. I think all I can go back to is that, certainly through the earlier part of this year up until now, those who have concerns have been quite vocal. It's for members to judge whether or not you are persuaded by the rationale put forward. Thank you for that clarification. My second question is in regards to 4.16 regarding the University of Edinburgh providing accommodation, which is applicable to the sort of context here and maybe more positive line of questioning than previously, because it highlights that 25% of university accommodation for visitors over the city are, I do apologize, 25% of the time has been used. I also understand that 500 beds have been secured by Queen Margaret University for performers this summer in liaison with the council. I was just wondering if officers could update us in any progress of that or similar programs going on? I think I'd have to go and check with colleagues, but I've been ongoing discussions with all universities in terms of seeking to ensure that the maximum amount of accommodation that could be made available is made available, universities will have their own needs during that period in terms of their own events, et cetera, about that dialogue is ongoing. I'm certainly happy to speak to colleagues and see if we can circulate to members an update. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Councillor GRIEM. If you want to come back on any of your points, then I'll come to Councillor E. Thank you. I've got two, pardon me, two further questions. Can we, thank you. At 6.1, you talked, we were talking about the potential to affect the council's financial position and work is being undertaken to assist whether technology can assist. I just wondered what kind of technology we're looking at for that. And also, at number seven, we are making an as a statement about the fact that home-shade has a potential to affect poverty and the cost of living crisis as some households. When, I mean, it has been, we're talking about things being reported, it's reported that within the city we have super landlords, et cetera, et cetera, so what kind of research backs up the probability that the home-shade letting and home-sharing have will affect people's income to that level. We're trying to suggest here that that's what it's going to do, where a large number of cases, it's business, et cetera. If it was home-sharing, if you'd understand the sentiment, home-letting, I really am not convinced that that is a factor. So, running through questions and order, the proposals are affordable for the director's income and the reportments clear that we would consider the financial impact on that and include that in any further report, so that committee could come to its own view of the affordability thereafter. Again, I think we need to be careful, this is not secondary lighting, these are not likely to be businesses, they're likely to be individuals letting their homes, either for a short period or letting a room while still staying in the home, and that would obviously allow them to generate some income. It's not intended that the measures would be reflected over the bigger businesses, to which you mentioned, because the SSC, the attempting exemption is highly unlikely to be attractive to them to apply for. Thank you. Are there any other questions then before I go to Councillor Rhee, because you had your hand up, Councillor Rhee. Thanks, Camina. I have a question for Mr Mitchell. When we were discussing this and talking about leaving in the pressure, I don't understand where the pressure is and who decided there was pressure, so I would like to know who that was, and when you said those who have concerns, who are those who have concerns, because I don't know who these people are, so there are people who want nasty alleviate pressures and people who have concerns, but I don't know who these people are, and I would like to know that, please. Thank you, Camina. So these are from my previous answer, groups that support the festivals and, in particular, the French society. So just the French society. As I said, the groups that support the festivals and, in particular, they are well-reported concerns, and the press, as I say again, it's for members to reach their own conclusion as to what you think of those concerns, but certainly I've been, a number of meetings, whether it was clearly articulated, that there is a pressure on accommodation and a pressure on the price of which that accommodation, which is available, is available, and apologies for... Do you agree on that? Thank you. Does that answer your question, Councillor Rae? Do you have another one? I have another one. Okay, bye. My other one is, I understand that because of these various pressures that we are having a trial, or there is a proposal to have a trial on these licenses, short licenses, temporary licenses, but have we ever considered having a trial where we don't issue temporary licenses and just see how things go? I suppose the honest answer to that question is no. The pros and cons for issuing temporary exemptions were debated back when the Council said it's original policy, and the Council at that time came down on the balance that there was value of having temporary exemptions. We haven't yet revisited that, and I suspect that's an issue that we'd have to look at again when we do the review in the summer. So what we're dealing with, essentially here, is people who want the markets to control everything, don't want the markets to control that. I think that's more of a comment, Councillor Rae, but thank you. More of a comment, yes. Yes, thank you. Have we exhausted your questions, Councillor Rae? Yes, Councillor Matasquilla, you have another question? Just one last one. Following up with what Councillor Rae was saying about the groups that are actively commenting on this, I'm well aware also that the French Society is concerned about accommodation for artists, and this is how I see things. I see this report maybe in a different way than some people. Can I do you have any views on this, or is it maybe you just know there's a short of accommodation, not sure who to thank you? I don't think there's anything I can use for you to add to my previous answers. Okay, thank you, Committee, have we exhausted questions? Looks like it. Are we going to take a minute or two break? Do you not need a break? You do need a break. Okay, there's one or two nods. We will adjourn for two minutes. Thank you. [ Silence ] Thank you, Committee, for your indulgence and everyone else in your indulgence in allowing the Committee to have a little few minutes to discuss what they're going to do next. So we move to the debate on this item. Do you want to introduce that, or is that? So following our little discussion, I intend to move the report with the Liberal Democrat amendment, and I will say at the end of my remarks how I wish to incorporate some verbal adjustments. Hang on a second. When I get there. So based on what we have heard, this report is before us today as a direct result of lobbying by the festival fringe and others on the Scottish Government. It's because the Scottish Government has wobbled under the pressure, just as they did last year when they caved into lobbying and postponed the start of the licensing scheme for existing operators by six months. We should not be basing our decisions on one-sided anecdotal evidence without hearing from others involved with or affected by short-term leads. That can lead to poor decisions with unintended consequences that may need further adjustment later on or may result in a legal challenge. The fringe are always worried about finding accommodation for visitors and performers, and the council has helped them this year to secure 500 beds at Queen Margaret University. As has been previously announced and referred to in our questions, this committee is already committed to a 12-month review of its entire short-term-led licensing policy. The proposal should come to the next meeting in June, I'm hoping, with a view to holding a full public consultation over the summer. I hope this process will include evidence-scathering sessions with key stakeholders, such as the summer festivals, and perhaps community councils as well. The results and recommendations for possible changes can then be considered by this committee in the autumn. This is the appropriate way to go about reviewing licensing policy. It gives everyone involved a chance to have their say, to provide a proper basis for any changes that might result, and doesn't present the same risks of legal challenge that come from inadequately evidence to change. I am open to making reasonable, balanced, and proportionate changes to licensing policy if they are supported by substantive evidence, and the impact is fair to residents, visitors, and operators. The council allows temporary exemptions from licensing specifically to cater for an increase in demand during the festivals or of our major events. For anyone listening to this webcast who wants to let out a room or their entire home for up to six weeks during the summer festival, there is a team ready to help with your application. If the Libdem amendment, as I am about to adjust, is approved, officers will simplify the application process for temporary exemptions, as this does not require a policy change. And licensing conditions will remain in place for now, as will existing fees. We want to ensure high standards of public safety in light properties, standards that proper professional landlords already adhere to, and which visitors have come to expect. Plus, the reduction of incentives for short-term over long-term letters. We also want to see unlicensed landlords brought within the licensing system in order to raise standards for visitors and to address neighbor concerns around anti-social behavior. My concern about proceeding with this trial as well is that once a change is made, it is difficult to recover. Should we choose to do so following a consultation? So, in order to accommodate concerns written in the Green Amendment, I am willing to add there 1.1.3, but in that removing, living rent and replacing that with tenant organizations. And also to incorporate the start of their 1.1.5 up to the words consultation on the matter full stop. Because, of course, we have a consultation coming over the summer. And, with that, I will move the report with that, I just did live down my amendment, and I was Councillor Caldwell to second. Thank you, convener. I think public safety is at the very heart of the regulations, and reminding that in any capacity would be a serious mistake. We have evidence in front of us that compliance is neither doing well nor poorly on inspections. So, an immediate deregulation of the very core safety conditions would be a hard pill for this committee as well. Additionally, we cannot create a two-tier system of those responsible home shares and home letters and owners who have already put the work to meet the conditions. As Councillor Ross has said, I am comfortable simplifying the process because cumbersome paperwork benefits no one, and it's an operational short-come that officers have identified rather than policy. However, I am incredibly disappointed that the recommendations in this report have come forward after meetings between the festival and the Scottish Government. Because I think it would have been clear as a committee, and a council that reviews must be done through proper channels and only when we have a solid base of evidence. We should be aware of particular cases and exceptions to both legislation and the Council's execution of legislation because no law can cover everything. Home swapping, theatrical digs, one-off home sharing, all things that we will be looking out for in the coming review and addressing concerns of, but the 2023 judicial review underlines the importance that we base any changes on solid evidence. Our residents elected most of us on tickets of sensible short-term-led controls, and we owe it to all of them as well as what legislation expects us to consider as part of evidence gathering to ensure the licensing scheme is fair, just and built on sound reasoning. And with that, I second that's amendment. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to now go to the Council Member Squealer to enable the SNP amendment. Thank you, convener, and I thank officers for the report. I welcome the lab dams 1.1.3 about simplifying the process. I think that makes a lot of sense. However, we will be moving the officer's report with our amendment. We see this as an opportunity for people like me that are single parents to safely maybe make a bit of an extra income, and we don't know how the cost of living crisis is unfortunately affecting everyone and single parents more. I will mention single parents everywhere, but to be fair, there's a lot of families. There's a lot of people that could do with this extra income, and I welcome this report because it will create a little bit of control, and if we don't do anything, things will still go into happen, so I appreciate what is being suggested. We also know from the Finch Society that there are a lot of concerns about accommodation for artists as well. So this is not just for visitors, it's also for the people that make the Finch what it is, and we welcome them to our city. We add 1.1.4. I know STL condition 7 already asks for a license. I think we're just emphasizing the request that it is a 24-hour contact. Then conditions 5 and 15 in our case should be maintained and not exempt to keep people to make sure everyone is safe. And with this, I invite Councillor Dixon to just, oh, Councillor is back. Councillor Norman 2 second. Thank you. Councillor Work, sorry. Thank you. I'm happy to second formally, which I think support the officers have done, and I think this is, and it answers a problem. And it's still for the consultation. So formally, with that, we added that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Work, Councillor Ray, in relation, would you like to speak on your green amendment? Thank you, Kimbina. I have actually need to change or withdraw our motion in favour of your motion with the additions that we have made to it. And thank you for that. I don't think that I could add anything to your speech because it was in fact excellent. The only thing I would like to say is that I have still great concerns that the organisations that have been trying very hard to undermine this committee externally are continuing to do that. And had they any understanding of the democratic process, they would perhaps cease to do it, but they clearly do not have that. So I hope that people will accept the Liberal Democratic Green Amendment. It seems the most sensible way forward and to the circumstances. And it will, as we have an addition, they are hopefully preventing anybody being affected, which is one of my primary concerns. Thank you. I invite other contributions. Okay, Councillor Mille and then Councillor Graham. Thank you. Thank you, Kimbina. One of the most important things we do when we're licensing and we have a licensing regime is try to encourage people to adhere to the licensing regime. And as someone who has been dealing with the issue of short-term let's, every single one of the 16 years that I've been a Councillor, I can speak to the concerns that have been raised by the community. The principle of a temporary exemption was discussed when we introduced the short-term let regulations and licensing scheme in Edinburgh. This is not a change to that. It is simply an adjustment of the fee, which I would hope would encourage more people to register their home letting and home sharing accommodation. And the reduction of those mandatory conditions, which are done by self-assessment and self-decoration at the moment, seems reasonable to me in a year when we have extreme concerns being expressed by those people who are of the most interest of finding accommodation for people to support the activities that they facilitate. This is all on the face of the legislation that went through, and I think what we are being asked to propose today responds to those concerns. Whenever you interfere or regulate something, you are interfering in the market for those who have concerns about the market should control this. Yes, that will control the prices, but there is also a latent demand of people who have previously let rooms in the festival who have been put off by what has been the introduction of the licensing scheme. They will either do it in a way that we don't know anything about it, or they may do it, or they won't do it at all, and that I think is the bit. Now, it is impossible to have a control, a control year, and there's two positions on the table. My position, and I will be supporting the S&P amendment today, and have they not brought their amendment, I would have just moved the report to implicit it, because I think there is a reasonable compromise put forward, which does respond to concerns. Now, to say, well, that's undemocratic for an industry that is going to experience a lot of changes, I have to say that actually business doesn't really have a democratic voice, because they took away the business votes many, many years ago. So that is the only way that they can express their concerns. For my part, I'm seeing both from residents who want to do this but have been pushed off, but I think this gives us an opportunity, if the change is made today, to go out and push that and get more people legitimately into the system. So we know where the properties are, because that is the number one concern, has always been the number one concern of residents. How do I contact someone when there is a problem? Is there a register? But short, home letting and home sharing have never been the significant problem. It has been secondary letting for residents. That is not covered with this, we're not dealing with that today. To me, this seems a proportionate revision to what has already been proposed, remembering that the principle of the temporary exemption was agreed when we passed our scheme of licensing. Thank you, Councillor GRIEM. Thank you, Councillor. We will be supporting the Liberal Democratic Amendment for the reasons that both yourself and Councillor Caldwell eloquently highlighted. So I don't want to continue and repeat most of them. One of the few things I would say is, if this report was just about home sharing, where there is an awful lot more control because the home is being shared and the residents there, there's a lot less anxiety within communities when home sharing is happening. To a degree in home letting can and it hasn't been as well defined, and we've asked the questions and notifications in licensing sub about home letting, and it's been highlighted to us that it's the explanation of home letting isn't as well as it should be. But my concern is for residents who had high expectations for the scheme for further to be a transformation in their communities, in their stairs, et cetera, that especially as a city centre councillor in the old town here, these things would revert back significantly, and there would be a lot more long-term letting than short-term letting. I think this allows to get off a hook and reverse things significantly like Councillor Rhee has highlighted over time. And I have grave concerns that we are being pressured by external market forces which impact significantly on the residents of the city, and that's who I'm here to represent and support. As well to a way to extend the business. Thank you. Does anyone else want to contribute? Nope. In that case briefly to sum up then I hear what you have said in relation to concerns about home letting as identified by Councillor Graham. I hear, likewise, Councillor Mater Squillows concerns that people are maybe being put off home sharing when they could have supplementary income. And there is the facility to do this. It's just how we go about it. And we are hoping to see simplified application process as a result of this, and I hope that will help address to a degree those concerns about the whole persistent being overly bureaucratic and difficult. I'm not sure that I can say anything about concerns expressed by Councillor Rhee in relation to evictions which are really out with the scope of this report. Maybe within the broad or context of short-term lighting it is relevant, of course, to be concerned, absolutely. But within the confines of this report I'm not sure there's much we can do. And with that I go to the vote. Thank you. So we have a motion by Councillor Ross and seconded by Councillor Caldwell, which is the report plus the Liberal Democrat Amendsment, which also incorporates adjusted paragraphs 1.1.3 and 1.1.5 of the Green Amendsment, which has since been withdrawn. And an Amendsment, which is the SMP Amendsment and the report by Councillor Matlow's Quelow and City by Councillor Work. So could I please have votes for the motion by Councillor Ross first? Bye, thank you. And for that Amendsment by Councillor Matlow's Quelow, please. Thank you, the motion is carried. Thank you, everyone. That's the end of the regulatory committee meeting for your attendance. And we now have a licensing subcommittee. [BLANK_AUDIO]