Hansard

The issues that are raised by amendments 372 and 388 have been covered, so I will not move those amendments.

Amendment 373 and the consequential amendment 389 would simply mandate that ministers must publish a model terms and conditions document for student tenancies that covers private and institutional providers. They would also empower ministers to make the model Ts and Cs binding at a later date via regulation if they think that it is necessary to do so. Let us be honest: there is little point in producing a document of very good quality if it then disappears on to gov.scot/publications, because it is not enforceable, and those who want to forget it will simply decide to do so.

Voluntary guidance will be followed by providers that already provide a good service. The cabinet secretary referred to Unipol guidance, which is a voluntary accreditation scheme for PBSA providers. By definition, if a provider is uninterested in good practice, it will not get accreditation and will not be bound by the guidance. The providers that do not get accreditation will need to be compelled to meet the standards that we expect of them, so ministers should retain the option of being able to compel them. Amendment 373 does not require ministers to do that; it simply gives them a regulation-making power. It does so for no other reason than that the threat of potential regulation would be an incentive for providers to comply now voluntarily.

The cabinet secretary has not given the Parliament a reason to vote against amendment 373. She has argued that work is already under way, which I am glad about. The amendment would ensure that that work has its desired effect. It would do three things: ensure that the work must be completed and that the document must be published, specify that the terms and conditions should address affordability, and give ministers the power to put the model on a statutory basis in the future, if they believe that to be necessary. It would make the model comparable to the existing model tenancy agreement that the Parliament agreed for the private rental sector years ago. If nothing else, retaining that option, as I said, should push providers to accept the standards voluntarily.

The cabinet secretary has not yet explained why the Government believes that a voluntary code is sufficient. Indeed, she acknowledged that many PBSA providers do not sign up to the existing voluntary standards—most do, but far from all of them. Writing guidance for those that already provide high-standard accommodation seems to be a bit of a pointless exercise. Some of the biggest providers—Vita, Student Roost and IQ—are not signed up to Unipol, at least according to its website. Why does a Vita tenant deserve less protection than a Unite Students tenant?

The biggest issue that student tenants face is cost, as evidenced by the campaigning on it by the NUS and student unions across Scotland. As I said, amendment 373 would mandate that affordability must be reflected in the model terms and conditions. It does not specify how, because doing so in primary legislation would be too restrictive. The exercise is on-going, so the amendment simply sets out that that is one point that needs to be covered.

We can all acknowledge that the likely outcome of the stage 3 proceedings is that PBSA will not be covered by the general rent control provisions. Amendment 373 is an alternative way to tackle the issue of extortionate costs in the sector, which all parties have acknowledged. It comes from a frustration about the pace of delivery on student tenancy reform. Crucially, it would also deliver on a PBSA review group recommendation.

Amendment 373 offers the best of both approaches: it would let the Government’s on-going work continue while allowing the Government to retain the power to go further if it is required in the future. I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary is opposing it without specifying why. She believes that voluntary guidance is sufficient, but we already have voluntary guidance that has proven insufficient, which is why we are engaged in the exercise.

I urge the Parliament to support amendment 373. It would not mandate anything beyond what is already happening, but it would give us the option to return to the matter and enforce the guidance that will be produced anyway if providers do not voluntarily adhere to it.

Amendment 374 and consequential amendment 390 deliver on another PBSA review group recommendation. They recognise that a lot of student tenants feel unable to have their concerns and issues reliably addressed by their providers. They are often simply ignored or left in limbo for months on end, and they have little option for redress or resolution.

Similar to the approach to the model terms and conditions, amendment 374 would require ministers to publish a model complaints procedure—that is, the one that is already being progressed, as the cabinet secretary has acknowledged—and would give ministers the optional power to make compliance binding at a later date.

All that my amendments would require ministers to do is what they have already committed to. The amendments would simply give them the option to take further action, if it is necessary, at a later point. A model terms and conditions document and a model complaints procedure are being produced, so let us give ourselves the option of ensuring that they are enforced in future. That is why I will move amendments 373, 374, 389 and 390.