Hansard

I thank the cabinet secretary for her indication that the Government will support my amendments 105 and 116, which will provide for the creation of regulations to set out the circumstances in which students in residential tenancies can terminate their lease.

Amendment 105 will add a new section to the bill that gives a power to Scottish ministers to set out in regulations a process for tenants in student residential tenancies to terminate their tenancy, in specific circumstances and subject to specific requirements. It will require ministers to consult stakeholders before laying draft regulations and require those regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I lodged those two amendments because students have spoken of having significant challenges with notice periods in certain circumstances and, in some cases, they encounter substantial barriers to ending their tenancy early. For example, students who are on an interruption of study do not have the choice to end their lease without incurring costs or being required to find a replacement student tenant. The same is the case for students who withdraw from their studies. For those reasons, I would welcome Parliament’s support for amendment 105.

Amendment 116 is consequential to amendment 105. It will amend section 52 to provide that regulations on termination of student tenancies that are laid under the power that is conferred by amendment 105 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I would welcome Parliament’s support for both those amendments.

I turn to my amendment on a strategy for purpose-built student accommodation. Amendment 370 would require local authorities to take account of the needs of students when preparing their local housing strategies. It would also place a duty on the Scottish ministers to issue guidance to local authorities on the development of strategies for purpose-built student accommodation—a call that was supported by NUS Scotland in a motion to its conference as far back as 2021.

The guidance may include

“aims for the ratio of student residential tenancies to other types of tenancy”,

views

“on the role of purpose-built student accommodation within the available housing stock”,

approaches

“to engaging with landlords and tenants of student residential tenancies in decision making”,

and

“advice on how to collect data on student residential tenancies to support decision making.”

The amendment would require ministers, in preparing the guidance, to consult

“higher education institutions ... local authorities,”

those who

“represent the interests of residents who are not students, and ... students’ associations”.

I said earlier to the cabinet secretary that, since 2015, purpose-built student accommodation has made up 28 per cent of the approvals for accommodation in Glasgow alone, despite the fact that students make up only 18.5 per cent of the city’s population. Students and residents across all areas, cities and regions in Scotland need accommodation. However, not all students want purpose-built student accommodation, and residents need a wide range of affordable housing options available to them. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a more strategic approach is taken to the provision of different housing tenures in local authority areas.

I am disappointed to hear that the cabinet secretary does not think that intervention is necessary in this space. The NUS believes that a strategy is needed, and local residents believe that it is necessary. Without a strategy, and without taking a strategic approach at the local level, students and others in our communities could be done out of appropriate housing, which the Government must provide to meet the needs of all Scotland’s people.

Therefore, I ask members to support amendment 370 and I ask the Government to kindly reconsider its position when it comes to making a decision on it.

My final amendment in the group, amendment 371, would require the Scottish ministers to prepare a purpose-built student accommodation charter within 12 months of the act coming into force. The charter would set out a summary of

“(a) the purpose of purpose-built student accommodation,

(b) the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants under a student residential tenancy,

(c) the process for dispute resolution between landlords and tenants under a student residential tenancy.”

The amendment states:

“The Charter may also include standards and outcomes which landlords should aim to achieve”.

In preparing the charter, the Scottish ministers would have to consult higher education institutions, local authorities, those who represent the interests of residents who are not students and, of course, student associations.

The need for the amendment has been made clear to me and others across the chamber by students and NUS Scotland, who argue—and I agree—that students can find it difficult at times to address damage, mould, pests and so on, and to get support when they need to address those issues. Many students find it difficult to individually challenge them.

It is crucial that the Government recognises the importance of all students having access to the best level of support to ensure that they have somewhere safe, comfortable, affordable and accessible to live while they study. That is why I lodged the amendments. At stage 2, the minister said that the purpose-built student accommodation review group made a specific recommendation on the development of model terms and conditions for the sector to support improvements in the consistency of the rights that students can expect from all providers, and that work is under way in the sector to implement that recommendation by developing tenancy agreements alongside a model complaints procedure.

I welcome all that work, and I would be grateful if the Government could involve us in that development as it goes forward, as the cabinet secretary has set out. I also welcome the work on the code that the cabinet secretary has set out, which NUS Scotland and others support. However, I have to say that I disagree with the comments that action is not needed. Not all accommodation providers adhere to the code. That alone implies that action is in fact needed. I have often wondered about the approach that is taken when ministers say that something is already happening so we do not need to legislate. Surely that simply means that the thing is implementable and that putting it on a statutory footing can do nothing other than reassure.

I therefore ask the Government to rethink its position on amendment 371 in order to reassure students as well as developers and providers, most of whom are doing the right thing, that the Government is on their side. My amendment would build on that on-going work and provide in legislation a statutory responsibility to produce a charter to reaffirm the protections that good practice providers already have in place and that students who are not lucky enough to live in those places need. I hope that members can support my amendment.