National Assembly for Wales

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee on our final evidence session on the legislation before us, which is the Tourism and Regulation of Visitor Accommodation (Wales) Bill. I'll do some housekeeping rules first of all, and then I'll ask the guests to introduce themselves and the organisations that they represent, and then we'll go into general questioning. I'll call for apologies, please. I don't believe we have any apologies. Any declarations of interest? Sam.

Thank you, Chair. Just for clarity, my parents run self-catering holiday lets.

Any other declarations of interest? I can't see any other declarations of interest. The headsets to the sides of our guests provide the translation service. There's instantaneous translation, so if you feel that you need to use them, just put them on and everything else will work for you. The microphones come on automatically; there's no need to press buttons on them.

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 fewer 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 fewer 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 EU'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 floorplan, 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 Davis, 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 is 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?