Hansard

My amendments seek to remove an erroneous Conservative amendment that was agreed to at stage 2, which immediately caused considerable upset and concern in the sector. A little humility would therefore go a long way.

In addition, the rent controls that we seek to pass in the bill are evidence led and locally led, and will give sufficient protection to tenants; however, I have also been clear on exemptions, which I know are critical for investment. The amendments in my name will remove reference to student tenancies from part 1 of the bill, and I urge members to support them.

Amendment 150, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is very similar to Graham Simpson’s stage 2 amendment 59, in that it seeks to allow for student tenancies to be covered by rent control. I reiterate that I do not consider that to be appropriate. Student tenancies should not be covered by rent control, and I cannot support amendment 150.

Amendments 179 to 191 and amendment 258, in the name of Edward Mountain, are similar to his amendments that were lodged at stage 2. They seek to replicate the regulatory requirements in relation to rent increases in the private rented sector for student tenancies. Ultimately, they appear to create a rent increase process and a means by which rent increase could be challenged.

As I have said, the student accommodation sector operates very differently from the mainstream private rented sector, and rent increases in student tenancies do not generally take place mid-tenancy; instead, they are for a fixed-term duration, which is aligned with the academic year. Edward Mountain’s amendments seek to treat student tenancies the same as tenancies in the PRS when it comes to restrictions on in-tenancy rent increases, and they do not take account of the inherent differences. In addition, as far as I understand it, there has been no consultation with the sector. I therefore cannot support those amendments.

Amendment 220, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is identical to an amendment that was considered and disagreed to at stage 2. It seeks to gather additional information on non-United Kingdom students and tenancy deposits, which I understand would support the use of a proposed regulatory power that is also provided for in the amendment.

As we set out previously, there are significant practical issues with obtaining that data in the way that is proposed, which lacks a clear remit or purpose. The tenancy deposit schemes do not currently collect information from tenants that would enable them to establish whether a tenancy deposit was for a non-UK domiciled student. Placing a requirement on the schemes to do that would be a significant change, which would have resource and cost implications. I therefore cannot support amendment 220.

Amendment 221, in the name of Edward Mountain, would increase the maximum limit for tenancy deposits from two months to three months for international students, where they are not required to provide a guarantor. I understand that, for international students, there can be barriers to accessing the private rented sector, such as difficulty with providing a United Kingdom-based guarantor. However, I do not think that the introduction of an increased deposit amount in place of the guarantor requirement would be sufficient to address some of the concerns of landlords. Indeed, we can envisage a scenario in which that could arguably make matters worse for international students, by requiring them to provide even larger deposits to satisfy landlords.

In addition, I must flag up the fact that treating different groups of people differently on account of their national origin could amount to discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and article 14 of the European convention on human rights. I am absolutely committed to further work on guarantor support, but I cannot support the formulation of amendment 221.

Amendment 222, in the name of Maggie Chapman, was also lodged at stage 2 and was not agreed to. It would require ministers to establish a public body, through regulations, to act as guarantor for non-UK domiciled students. I cannot support the amendment, given the on-going financial implications that it would necessarily have.

We committed to considering how existing avenues of support could be strengthened as a more cost-effective alternative, and I would like to update members on that. My officials are carrying out a mapping exercise to increase our understanding of guarantor support, which will help us to identify gaps in provision, barriers to access and any possible solutions. Once completed, I would like the exercise to form the basis of more detailed work with local authorities, student housing providers in particular and members on how we can formulate a more consistent approach, whether that is a national framework or guidance. For that reason, I ask Maggie Chapman not to move amendment 222 but to work with me on a comprehensive and detailed piece of work.

Amendment 239, in the name of Graham Simpson, and amendment 370, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, seek to amend current legislation in respect of local housing strategies by making specific reference to students when local authorities are assessing housing provision and related services in their area. Amendment 370 would also require ministers to produce specific guidance on purpose-built student accommodation and local authorities to have regard to that.

I understand the intention behind the amendments, but I do not believe that there is a need to specify that in primary legislation, because the existing legislative requirements on authorities are clear that they relate to the housing needs of all people in the area. I cannot support the introduction of legislation that would target support for one specific group over another, recognising that, in meeting local housing needs, local authorities will require to balance the needs of a much fuller range of priority groups, as informed by their housing need and demand assessment. Therefore, although I understand the intention, I cannot support the amendments.