Chamber and committees

Finally, some have suggested that the transitional provisions are uncertain, or could lead to uncertainty. Do you think that the transitional provisions, as they stand, are likely to lead to uncertainty, or are problematic, or do you feel that, as the previous panel set out, they are perfectly reasonable? Do any of you have a view on that?

I have some questions on the points that have been raised.

Section 28 allows tenants to withhold payment if the landlord fails to notify them of the United Kingdom address to which termination documents may be sent. What is your position on the views on that that have been expressed in the responses to the call for views?

Some of the responses to the call for views have suggested that the transitional rules are likely to be a source of uncertainty for parties to leases. Could you explain how the transitional provisions in the bill will work with regard to commercial leases that have already been entered into before the bill comes into force?

I will ask the same question that I put to the previous panel. What is your position on some of the criticisms of section 28 of the bill, which allows tenants to withhold payment if the landlord fails to notify them of their UK address? You probably heard the evidence that David Bartos, on the first panel, gave. Is it right that the landlord should have a UK address? If they have only a registered office or a plaque on the wall, is that pretty meaningless? Do we need to know where the landlord is located?

As I indicated previously, all of my amendments in this group are probing amendments, which I do not plan to push to the vote today. They were lodged after discussions with Scottish Women’s Aid and are very much aimed at strengthening the requirement in new section 56A of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, as inserted by section 45 of the bill, for social housing providers to take account of a domestic abuse policy, to require a review of women’s aid provision and to enable the public debt of domestic abuse survivors—for example, rent arrears—to be written off. I will listen carefully to what the minister has to say today, with a view to considering whether to bring back versions of the amendments at the next stage.

Amendment 1061 requires relevant bodies to ask individuals whom they have reason to believe might be

“homeless or threatened with homelessness”

whether their situation arose as a consequence of either past or on-going experience of abuse.

Amendment 1062 defines abuse—the definition is outlined in the amendment—and amendment 1063 requires the relevant body, where it is informed that a person is threatened with homelessness

“as a consequence of ... having experienced or experiencing abuse”,

to provide details of support to that person.

Amendment 1064 is a wider amendment, in that it expands the range of individuals whom relevant bodies need to respond to, where they believe that they might be threatened with homelessness due to the threat or experience of abuse.

Amendment 1088 calls on Scottish ministers to carry out a review of temporary housing provided to people who have suffered domestic abuse. Such a review would take into account international standards, including treaties that the United Kingdom has perhaps not signed up to, but which are considered international norms—for example, provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence.

Amendment 1066 requires Scottish ministers to consult, while amendment 1089 relates to the issue of public debt and the scope of domestic abuse policies, with a particular focus on issues such as writing off the whole or part of rent arrears.

As I have said, I have spoken to these amendments before. I am very much interested in hearing the minister’s views today, but I do not plan to press amendment 1061 or move any others on this occasion.

As I indicated previously, all of my amendments in this group are probing amendments, which I do not plan to push to the vote today. They were lodged after discussions with Scottish Women’s Aid and are very much aimed at strengthening the requirement in new section 56A of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, as inserted by section 45 of the bill, for social housing providers to take account of a domestic abuse policy, to require a review of women’s aid provision and to enable the public debt of domestic abuse survivors—for example, rent arrears—to be written off. I will listen carefully to what the minister has to say today, with a view to considering whether to bring back versions of the amendments at the next stage.

Amendment 1061 requires relevant bodies to ask individuals whom they have reason to believe might be

“homeless or threatened with homelessness”

whether their situation arose as a consequence of either past or on-going experience of abuse.

Amendment 1062 defines abuse—the definition is outlined in the amendment—and amendment 1063 requires the relevant body, where it is informed that a person is threatened with homelessness

“as a consequence of ... having experienced or experiencing abuse”,

to provide details of support to that person.

Amendment 1064 is a wider amendment, in that it expands the range of individuals whom relevant bodies need to respond to, where they believe that they might be threatened with homelessness due to the threat or experience of abuse.

Amendment 1088 calls on Scottish ministers to carry out a review of temporary housing provided to people who have suffered domestic abuse. Such a review would take into account international standards, including treaties that the United Kingdom has perhaps not signed up to, but which are considered international norms—for example, provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence.

Amendment 1066 requires Scottish ministers to consult, while amendment 1089 relates to the issue of public debt and the scope of domestic abuse policies, with a particular focus on issues such as writing off the whole or part of rent arrears.

As I have said, I have spoken to these amendments before. I am very much interested in hearing the minister’s views today, but I do not plan to press amendment 1061 or move any others on this occasion.

I wish to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1061, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 1062 and 1063 not moved.

The intention behind the amendment is to expand the range of individuals. In real life, there are many situations where tenants are threatened with violence from a range of individuals, including a family member of an ex-partner. Is the minister satisfied that the current legal framework or the proposals in the bill are strong enough to deal with the range of scenarios that our constituents have to face, and which he will be aware of, where they are threatened with or indeed have been the subject of serious violence? Is he satisfied that the provisions are strong enough to capture that range of situations?

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the amendments in the group, all of which were lodged with the aim of exploring how we can create a strong duty of care to students on educational institutions in the higher and further education sectors. The duties that organisations have to students are very different from those that they have to their workforce—where duty of care is contained in the employment contract—and from the types of duties that exist in the school system.

I have come to the committee as a result of work around violence against women and girls—there are a number of cases in which there have been significant failures in the education setting—and the work of campaigners such as Fiona Drouet, which many committee members will know of.

My amendments relate to how we can try to ensure that there are greater obligations on institutions in relation to students. We have to remember that many young people leave home for the first time to go to college and university, which are very different kinds of environments from the ones that they have been in before. As a society, we need to ensure that we provide a strong framework and that there are appropriate duties of care to students in such situations.

All my amendments relate to the mental health and wellbeing of all students in further education and higher education and those who are studying for teaching qualifications, for example, under the proposed qualifications Scotland framework.

We know that being a student, and, indeed, taking part in those forms of training, can be a very stressful experience for many. A survey from the Mental Health Foundation in 2021 showed that 19.6 per cent—nearly 20 per cent—of university students in Scotland reported either having had suicidal ideas or making a suicide attempt in the previous six months. There will be other data and we know, generally, that this is a very stressful time for many. Trade unions in the further and higher education sector have also reported that there are high levels of stress, anxiety, depression and other mental health issues among staff, and that those issues can exist on campus.

Clearly, we need robust and codified support for both those who are learning and those who are teaching under the proposed qualifications Scotland framework. All my amendments aim to open up that discussion and consider how we can—

I am grateful to Ross Greer for his intervention. Most people who work on campuses probably have a direct contract of employment that probably includes a duty of care in relation to their employment. I would hope that most support staff would be covered by that duty through the employer-employee relationship. However, over the decades, there have been increasing numbers of people working on site—contractors, consultants or other individuals working in a wide range of capacities—who are not in a traditional contract of employment situation. Institutions are already having to grapple with those issues.

My amendments in the group very much focus on students, who, almost bizarrely, seem to have fewer contractual rights in their educational relationship with institutions. I suggest that we need to explore that. We need a generic right and an overriding attempt to ensure that there is a duty of care.

My amendments can be seen against the backdrop—particularly after Covid, but it has been happening over many decades—of an awareness of the increasing numbers of individuals who say that they have mental health concerns while studying. According to Scottish universities, the number of students who say that they have a mental health condition has tripled over the past decade.

It is with all that in mind that I have lodged the amendments to embed the concept of a duty of care in qualifications Scotland and in institutions. As I hope that I have made clear from the way in which I have presented my amendments, this is an attempt to start the discussion and to look at how it could be done.

I hear what Jackie Dunbar said about the concerns that are being raised by institutions. When I initially came to the issue a number of years ago, it was senior members of institutions who raised it with me. There is an appetite in the sector for change, whether as drafted in my amendments or differently. I am interested in the concerns that were raised in the correspondence that Jackie Dunbar referred to earlier. Obviously, the debate needs to be had.

However, as politicians and representatives in this Parliament, it is reasonable for us to say that we expect institutions to have such a duty of care to students. In the past, there has not been the guidance, support and pastoral care that we would have expected. I hope that committee members are sympathetic to that, whether or not they feel that they are able to support the specific wording of any of my amendments in the group.

I move amendment 224.