Seòmar agus comataidhean

My question is similar to the one about timescales. What I am hearing in relation to a number of amendments is the need for consultation with the review group. I have to say that I share Ross Greer’s concern, if that is the right word—I do not want to put words in my colleague’s mouth—that we are not hearing that we should consult the review group on lodging stage 3 amendments that do the same thing, albeit with some specific changes. I again ask the minister whether the Government is prepared to lodge an amendment at stage 3 that looks to address the student loan income issue that we have been discussing.

I am not sure that I understand the minister’s logic. Why does he think that it would be difficult to regulate in that area? What does he think the problem would be for landlords to determine whether that source of income is equal to another one?

As we heard this morning, students as a group have been adversely affected and impacted by the current housing emergency. In fact, figures from NUS Scotland show that 12 per cent of students in Scotland have experienced homelessness while studying. We have just heard from my colleague Jeremy Balfour about how we in the Parliament want to ensure that people can study because of their ability, not their ability to pay. That is incredibly important.

For those who are in student accommodation, it has become increasingly unaffordable, insecure and poor quality. Students cannot learn properly if they do not have warm, secure and affordable homes to live in. That is why I lodged my amendments on student tenancies and accommodation.

Amendment 537, on pre-tenancy requirements and student funding, was lodged because landlords can refuse to rent to students, and some express preferences based on the source of student income, such as loans or student grants. That can create challenges for students who are seeking housing, especially those who rely on student loans or who have limited income. Amendment 537 would require Scottish ministers to introduce regulation to provide student funding with equal status to other forms of income for the purposes of pre-tenancy checks. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that students are not discriminated against based on the source of their funding, and that they can secure housing in the same way as non-students can.

Amendment 541 is on the power to enable tenants to terminate student residential tenancies—I know that other members have an interest in that, too. Students are not currently defined as tenants under the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 if they live in private purpose-built student accommodation or halls of residence.

Purpose-built student accommodation is exempt from several tenancy regulations and, instead, falls under common law. Most notably, students can struggle with the 28-day notice period in certain circumstances. Student accommodation continues to operate on a fixed-term lease, which is practical for the academic year. However, students sometimes have valid reasons to leave their leases but often find it very difficult to do so, and the system gives providers a strong upper hand. For example, students who are on an interruption of study do not have the choice to end their lease in a private PBSA without incurring costs or being required to find a replacement student. The same is the case for students who withdraw from their studies.

Amendment 541 would give Scottish ministers the power to provide, where necessary, for a student residential tenancy to be terminated by a tenant in the same manner as a private residential tenancy may be terminated by the tenant under part 5 of the 2016 act. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that students in PBSAs can end their contracts with the student accommodation provider if they withdraw from or take an interruption from their studies without incurring any financial losses or emotional distress as a result of their decision.

I turn to amendment 474, which is on a purpose-built student accommodation charter. Purpose-built student accommodation rent typically costs 30 per cent to 50 per cent more than the average rent in any given area. In fact, rent for PBSAs increased by more than 34 per cent between 2018 and 2021, which is much higher than the rate of inflation. It means that PBSAs are often financially inaccessible to students from low-income backgrounds, particularly those from the 20 per cent most deprived areas according to the Scottish index of multiple deprivation. As a result, some students are left with no choice but to travel long distances from their family homes, to face homelessness or to experience unsuitable housing situations. Furthermore, increased prices for PBSAs do not always reflect a higher standard of accommodation. An NUS report pointed out that the quality of student accommodation can affect students’ mental health and wellbeing and, in turn, their ability to study.

Amendment 474 would require Scottish ministers to publish a purpose-built student accommodation charter within 12 months of the act coming into force. I am aware that the Scottish Government is working with universities and Universities Scotland to look at practice and codes in that area, but I am keen to see what can be done through legislation to set out a statutory right to and responsibility for such a charter. It would set out

“the purpose of purpose-built student accommodation ... the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants under a student residential tenancy”

and

“the processes for dispute resolution”.

It could also include the standards and outcomes that landlords should aim to achieve. The amendment aims to ensure that landlords and tenants are aware of the purpose of such accommodation. It is for the Government to set out, via regulation, that the premise is to ensure that PBSAs are affordable, accessible, safe and connected.

My amendment 475 is about introducing a purpose-built student accommodation strategy. Since 2015, PBSAs have made up 28 per cent of approvals for accommodation across Glasgow alone. That is in spite of 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 to be available to them, too.

Amendment 475 would require ministers to prepare a purpose-built student accommodation strategy that sets out ministers’ objectives with regard to purpose-built student accommodation, their plans for meeting those objectives and arrangements for monitoring progress towards them. The strategy could include aims for the ratio of student residential tenancies to other types of tenancy, as well as the Government’s view on the role of PBSAs within the available housing stock. My amendment sets out that, in preparing the strategy, ministers would be required to consult higher education institutions, local authorities, representatives of students and, crucially, non-students and residents in local areas. Ministers would be required to lay the charter and strategy before the Scottish Parliament. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a more strategic approach is taken to the provision of different housing tenures in any local authority area.

Amendment 556 is a consequential amendment to amendment 537.

Like me, are you faced with a very difficult circumstance, which is to try to press an amendment at stage 2, which may or may not carry the support of the committee, without knowing the position of the Government?

Does the minister recognise that members will have done some of that engagement?

Okay.

Whether we are talking about the expectations or the detail of them, the fact is that, without these amendments, no compliance with the charters will be required. I am prepared to consider at stage 3 the literal point about whether the wording should mention expectations, but I suspect that there might be a broader discussion about whether those amendments would garner support.

Amendment 272 would require qualifications Scotland to consult the qualifications Scotland board before producing the teacher and practitioner charter, while amendment 273 specifies a range of interested parties whom qualifications Scotland would have to consult in preparing that charter. Amendment 274 would require qualifications Scotland to seek the view of the strategic advisory council and to revise the charter in accordance with any recommendations that the council made.

Amendment 275, which seeks to recognise the distinct needs and requirements of learners, teachers and practitioners in the post-school environment, is, I think, a really important amendment that would address the situation that would arise when staff in colleges and other institutions, as well as students, were concerned about the practice of not marking people’s exams or coursework as a result of industrial action. It is important that we put in place expectations so that learners and staff in those establishments are clear about what they can expect, in order to close some of the gaps that I think would exist if we did not add a post-school learner and practitioner charter to the bill. That is why I think that amendment 275 is so important.

Amendments 276 and 277 would ensure that the charters were reviewed every three years instead of every five. I am seeking to change the review timescale because, if the charters were reviewed only every five years, such a review could end up happening outwith the entire learning journey of a young person in secondary school. It is important that there is an opportunity to review the charters during a young person’s learning journey, not just after it.

Amendment 278 would require qualifications Scotland to consult when it reviewed or revised the charters, while amendment 279 would ensure that the strategic advisory council would be involved in the detail of such reviews and could comment on them and recommend any additions.

Finally, amendment 285 would require any failure to meet expectations in the charters to be set out in qualifications Scotland’s annual report, along with what remedies qualifications Scotland would implement.

I move amendment 255.

My intention is not to compel the sharing of specific data. This is about creating the landscape in which data sharing could be promoted more easily.

A lot of the support for this sort of approach has come from further and higher education institutions and comes out of the pilot programme looking into how we could include information for the widening access programme beyond just the Scottish index of multiple deprivation. My understanding is that the institutions would be supportive of this approach.

As I said, the amendments would not compel them to share particular data. The suggestion is that a unique learner number could smooth the way for the future development of such data sharing, if that was required.

I intend to press amendment 234, because I think that I have support for it and I feel that it is an important amendment. I will not move amendments 235, 240, 237 or 239 at this point, on the basis that Stephen Kerr’s amendment is preferred and I think that it does what mine was seeking to do anyway.

On amendment 240, I am compelled by Ross Greer’s argument about the language of terms such as simplicity, simplified and constant simplification, and I am keen to work to find another mechanism or another way of saying what I think we both agree is necessary at stage 3.

The outcome will be the same, because I will not move amendment 240, but I am not as convinced by the cabinet secretary’s point about the responsibility for coherence.

If there are too many bodies organising different aspects of qualifications, there is no leadership. That is part of the problem that we have seen in education in Scotland. I am not convinced by the cabinet secretary’s argument, but I will work with Ross Greer ahead of stage 3 on an amendment that I think could carry the support of Parliament.

On the basis that the cabinet secretary is prepared to work with me to look at how we could have regard to developments in knowledge and skills, while looking at the language around that, I will not move amendment 235.

Amendment 234 agreed to.

Amendments 34, 235 and 4 not moved.

Amendments 54 to 56 moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—and agreed to.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Amendment 6 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendments 240 and 236 to 239 not moved.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

After section 7

Amendment 241 not moved.

My amendments to section 6 aim to embed collaboration into the culture and the legal framework of Scotland’s education system.

The failures of the past, which have been documented, have resulted in a level of disconnected policy making that has meant that curriculum, learning and assessment, and qualifications have been somewhat kept in silos. We have ended up with a situation in which the curriculum has not always been driven by what young people want to learn in the classroom, what we need them to learn for the future or what the teaching profession and employers think that they should learn, but has been driven, in fact, by the needs of assessment. We have all recognised that, and it is one of the reasons why it is important that we take on board the reviews. My amendments in this group aim to begin to correct that situation.

My amendments 232 and 243 would establish a two-way duty of collaborative relationships between the new body, qualifications Scotland, and Education Scotland, so that we can create a system whereby, in effect, the assessment is driven by the curriculum rather than the other way round. That is really important. Although the organisations have standing relationships with different parts of the sector, we know that those relationships could be stronger and that, in places, they have fallen short.

A collaborative relationship between qualifications Scotland and Education Scotland is crucial. It is also what the OECD, and independent reports such as those by Ken Muir and Louise Hayward, said was needed, and it could enable progress towards a culture of collaboration and the coherence across learning, assessment and qualifications that most of us agree is needed.

My amendment 233 would strengthen the collaboration duty of qualifications Scotland by requiring it to work in collaboration with others, rather than to have “regard to the desirability” of doing so. Sometimes, we can get bogged down in semantics, but the bill’s language on collaboration is really important. To have a situation whereby national agencies that operate in the education landscape need only

“have regard to the desirability of ... collaboration”

is too weak. Amendment 233 would amend section 6(2) to say that qualifications Scotland “must work” with other bodies in order to create the coherence, collaboration and consistency in the system that everybody knows that we need.

I move amendment 232.