More jam tomorrow as the SNP prioritises promises over protections for student renters

There’s still no sign of the latter, and if I was being generous, I’d describe the government’s position on the former as a work in progress.

At Stage 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, Cabinet Secretary Màiri McAllan was keen to express sympathy for students – while systematically voting down every meaningful attempt to protect them.

Over the summer, McAllan had promised a government amendment at Stage 3 on students being able to escape fixed-term tenancies in PBSA in specific circumstances – perhaps in the event of long term illness, or if they interrupt or withdraw from their studies.

The results of a survey of practice in the area had been published in July (some 17 months after it was promised) showing students caught in a financial trap, where leaving early means devastating costs.

Half of students surveyed who tried to leave their accommodation early were hit with financial penalties beyond a month’s rent, students reported being forced to endure poor quality accommodation because they couldn’t afford to leave, and even where there were terms allowing early exit, a quarter didn’t know.

International students felt forced into expensive or low quality PBSA only to discover no practical way for them to leave, those with unexpected medical issues found themselves liable for full year payments despite having no practical alternative when their circumstances changed, and others described the market as “predatory” where “there is no reason for them to do anything other than the bare minimum.”

But the amendment never came. It was left to Labour’s Pam Duncan-Glancy to propose Amendment 105, which will give ministers regulation-making power to allow students to terminate their tenancies in specified circumstances. McAllan was pretty much shamed into supporting it – circumstances will be “laid out in regulation” following consultation, so students will have to wait to see what this actually means in practice.

Rent controls

The big battle of the afternoon was the SNP’s determined effort to reverse Stage 2 amendments that had brought PBSA within its rent control provisions. McAllan argued that they are not part of the mainstream private rented sector – and that it was a “significant error” for the committee to have agreed this in the first place:

[the amendments] have caused significant confusion and concern in the sector… student accommodation operates very differently from the mainstream private rented sector, as rent increases in student tenancies do not generally take place mid tenancy.

That this is exactly what will allow PBSA providers to jack the rent up beyond that that will be allowed elsewhere in a city with rent controls was not explored.

Conservative MSP Edward Mountain attempted to create some formal rent review processes for PBSA – including rights to refer cases to rent officers and appeal to tribunals. But McAllan dismissed those on the grounds that there had been “no consultation with the sector” and that the proposals failed to “take account of the inherent differences” in student accommodation.

The Greens’ Maggie Chapman took a different approach – seeking to “allow for student tenancies to be covered by rent control” while giving ministers discretion over implementation – on the basis that “students deserve the same protections as anyone else renting over their head.” McAllan’s response was blunt:

I do not consider these to be appropriate. Student tenancies should not be covered by rent control, and I cannot support those amendments.

Affordability

When pressed more broadly on affordability issues in PBSA, the government seemed more concerned with complexity rather than solutions. Affordability was, according to McAllan, “very difficult to define” – noting that “rental costs in the PBSA include more than just rent.”

She was, nevertheless, “open to working with members of the chamber, representatives from the sector and students, to look at solutions on affordability for the long term” – but offered no concrete measures or timelines. Students might wonder what’s taking so long.

The treatment of international students was handled in much the same way. The Conservatives wanted maximum deposits, but McAllan was worried about discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, while the Greens proposed a government-backed guarantor scheme – but McAllan couldn’t support that either, given the “financial ongoing implications that it would necessarily create.”

Even their modest request for a review of the deposits that international students are required to pay was rejected over the “significant practical issues with obtaining this data” – so more future work was the answer. Officials are carrying out a mapping exercise to increase understanding of guarantor support that may lead potentially to “a national framework or guidance.”

Going local

Two amendments had a run at ensuring student housing needs were properly considered in local planning – but contrary to the explicit manifesto commitment, the government was reluctant to acknowledge students as a distinct group requiring specific policy attention:

I cannot support the introduction of legislation which would target support for one specific group over another.

That the same government was simultaneously arguing that students were so different from other tenants that they needed to be excluded from rent controls never came up.

The Greens had a run at giving ministers power to publish model terms and conditions and complaints procedures, with optional powers to make them binding later, and Labour proposed a statutory PBSA charter setting out “Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants under a student residential tenancy” and “the process for dispute resolution.”

The need for this had been highlighted by students struggling with issues like “damage, mold, pests” and finding it “difficult to individually challenge” problems – with the Greens’ Ross Greer pointing out the fundamental flaw in voluntary approaches:

Voluntary guidance will be followed by the providers who are already providing a good service… Those who do not will need to be compelled to meet the standards that we expect of them… Why does a Vita tenant deserve less protection than a Unite Students tenant?

McAllan’s response fell back on familiar themes – work was “well under way” and “well progressed” without need for statutory underpinning, and there was “flexibility that comes with guidance” versus “rigidity that comes with primary legislation.”

The government won all of the key votes, and so students will be excluded from mainstream tenant protections and denied recognition as a group with specific needs requiring policy attention.

It’s hard to read the government’s position as anything other than being “got at” by various parts of the “new build” sector. Identifying PBSA as one slice where supply can be stimulated via an absence of regulation will almost certainly mean worse protection and higher rents than everyone else.