���˿���

If the minister is suggesting that I and he speak with those in the sector ahead of stage 3, is he willing to consider an amendment for stage 3?

I know that the minister loves to have meetings and talks, and they are often very valued, but can he give me a straight answer to this question: subject to those talks or consultations, is he prepared to consider an amendment for stage 3?

As Sarah Boyack has outlined, section 41 would place a duty on relevant bodies, such as councils, health boards and the police, to ask whether an individual is homeless or at risk of homelessness and to take action if they are. Members, including me, are seeking to add to that list.

I have a couple of amendments in the group, and they deal with students alone. The reason for that is that students have raised with me and other ���˿��� how they are often overlooked in the housing system. I will quote Lawrence Williams from the group Slurp: Students for Action on Homelessness and which is based in Edinburgh:

“From hidden homelessness to unaffordable rents, students in Scotland face a range of housing issues that have long been overlooked by policy-makers and universities.”

Last September, the cross-party group on housing, which I convene, published a report on student housing and homelessness—the committee might be aware of it. We found that thousands of students across Scotland are at risk of homelessness and are unable to access the right housing in some of our biggest cities. Our research identified a shortfall of 13,800 bed spaces in Edinburgh, 6,093 in Glasgow and 6,084 in Dundee.

We also found that there is ambiguity surrounding who is responsible for addressing student homelessness and that there is a lack of co-ordination between universities, councils and other providers regarding student housing. We came up with a set of quite challenging recommendations that we sent to the Government. My amendments seek to give effect to some of those recommendations.

Amendment 1001 seeks to include higher education institutions, which are defined under the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 as “a university” or “a designated institution”, within the list of relevant bodies that will have a duty to deal with homelessness. Members know what that list already includes.

Several weeks ago—you may have forgotten about it—the committee received a letter about this from Universities Scotland. I encourage Universities Scotland to speak to me directly if it has any concerns about my other amendments on students, not just for this committee but for the other committee that is dealing with the bill. With regard to amendment 1001, the letter does not say that universities should not be relevant bodies; rather, it calls for the adoption of the Government’s time-honoured and favoured approach of consulting. That can, of course, often be a delaying tactic, and students cannot afford that delay. The minister will, no doubt, say that we should consult, but we will hear from him.

Universities have a duty of care to their students, thousands of whom come to Scotland to study and many of whom move within Scotland. That is why this is important.

Amendment 1002 would deal with private providers of purpose-built student accommodation and would include them in the list of relevant bodies. Research from the National Union of Students Scotland, which was cited in the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s stage 1 report, found that the average rent for PBSA increased by 34 per cent between 2018 and 2021. That has created a “large disparity” between PBSA and the private rented sector. PBSA is not sufficiently regulated at the moment, and those who live in PBSA will not be covered by the Housing (Scotland) Bill in its current form. Amendment 1002 would add

“a private provider of purpose-built student accommodation”

to the list of relevant bodies.

I think—I would say this—that amendments 1001 and 1002 are both sensible. They deal with people, groups, organisations and bodies that ought to have a responsibility for the students whom they serve and that ought to take homelessness seriously. That is why I lodged those amendments.

I am looking at section 42 of the bill. We are always asked to bring a copy of the bill, and I have done so. There is no mention of students in section 42. That is why I have lodged my amendments.

I think that the minister gets the issue—I am pretty sure that he understands it. I will take him up on the second offer that he has made to engage with me ahead of stage 3, but I have to tell him that I take the issue extremely seriously; if he is not prepared to work with me to draft something for stage 3, I will do it myself, because it really matters.

Will the minister take an intervention?

Yes. Does Gail Macgregor want to come in?

I accept that, but it is wrong, so we should not.

What is it that they want?

That is useful. Some of that could come within the bracket of hammering the motorist, if I could put it that way. As Gail Macgregor pointed out earlier, the introduction of many of those measures in any city is potentially controversial. That is what makes it difficult to introduce them.

To go back to what you said earlier, cabinet secretary, and to what you said in the chamber in March, have you now dropped the 20 per cent target?

Does Transport Scotland have any more information on that?