Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Teather Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to add my name to Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, who has made a very powerful case indeed, and I will not repeat what she has said. She emphasised that my noble friend the Minister is extremely sympathetic—she made that clear in Committee. She also said that she thought statutory guidance was the answer but that if it proved not to be sufficient, then, in effect, we have the necessary primary powers to take action.

I simply want to ask my noble friend whether she could give an assurance that, in the event that the guidance proves insufficient as the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has warned it might do, the Government will use those powers. Can she say what steps will be taken to monitor compliance with the guidance? What does she consider a reasonable period to assess the effectiveness of the guidance? Can she also say—and this echoes the noble Baroness—what steps will be taken to ensure local authorities are aware of the guidance and what is expected of them under it?

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords, I too was very pleased to add my name in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neate. I want to also say a few remarks about the other amendments that we support in this group, and I will turn to them in a moment. Again, I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has so ably laid out, but I want to follow up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, that we would be pleased to hear a commitment from the Minister about what the Government will do if the guidance proves to be ineffective, how they will monitor whether it is effective and what the back-up plan is.

I think we are all of one mind that we want to see action on this point. Without action on it, that risks undermining the good work that the Bill lays out on support for victims of domestic violence. To leave one huge hole in the Bill would be very disappointing, and I know that the Minister is very committed to tackling this issue of financial abuse.

Briefly, we on these Benches also support Amendments 28 and 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I note in particular on Amendment 29 that it is not just a nice to have. The point is that there really is legal ambiguity; housing associations say that, without this legislation, they are in a difficult position if they are to be able to fulfil their legal obligations. The noble Lord indicated that the Minister has said that she is very sympathetic to this point, and I really look forward to hearing what she says on how she will meet the requests of housing associations there.

Finally, we welcome the expansion of scope in laying out and making sure that these provisions apply to other forms of abuse including, for example, sibling abuse or child-to-parent abuse. These are made available by the amendments that the Government have tabled here. We really welcome that change.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I begin by thanking the Minister for the constructive approach that she has taken throughout consideration of the Bill and for listening to concerns raised from across the House on the provisions relating to domestic abuse. I know that a number of noble Lords highlighted situations where abuse does not occur solely within a current or former intimate relationship but can also involve wider family members, including circumstances where children abuse parents, parents abuse children or other family members within the household are victims.

It is therefore welcome that the Government have reflected on those concerns and brought forward amendments which broaden the scope of these protections. The objective must always be to ensure that victims are protected and not left at a disadvantage, simply because their particular circumstances do not neatly fit within a narrower definition.

During Committee, we also raised concerns about the practical operation of these provisions and over the timescales involved in securing outcomes through the courts. While it is right that safeguards are in place, it is equally important that victims are able to obtain protection without unnecessary delay. I hope that the Government will continue to keep the implementation of these measures under review to ensure that they achieve their intended purpose in practice as well as in principle.

We have also heard valuable contributions on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The proposed duty to ensure continuity of tenancy for those forced to move because of threats of targeted youth or gang violence raises an important issue. Nobody should face the prospect of losing the security of their tenancy because they are compelled to move for the safety of their family.

Likewise, the amendment concerning access for registered providers to undertake essential safety inspections addresses a long-standing and very practical problem. Social landlords have a significant statutory duty in relation to gas safety, electrical safety and smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. Where access cannot be obtained despite reasonable efforts, there needs to be a proportionate mechanism that can protect both the rights of tenants and the safety of the residents. This amendment seeks to establish a clear framework for achieving that balance.

This debate is therefore united by a common theme of ensuring that the law provides appropriate protection, whether for victims of domestic abuse, tenants facing serious threats to their safety or residents whose well-being depends upon essential safety checks being carried out. I again thank all noble Lords for their contributions and the Minister for her engagement on these issues.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Teather Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I am disappointed that a Bill that purports to protect the supply of new homes fails to consider the texture of protecting certain types of adapted homes. We are an ageing nation and nowadays, many more premature babies survive into adulthood with life-limiting conditions. In Committee, I explained how councils might install housing adaptations so that a resident with an impairment can live more comfortably. I explained that it might be as simple as a grab rail or ramp. Half of such adaptations include a wet room, many with wider doors to accommodate wheelchairs.

In preparation for Report, I sat down with Kevin Philcox, the officer responsible for housing standards at South Norfolk Council. He told me that wet rooms are important because poor personal hygiene is a leading cause of infection and hospital admission among the elderly. Keeping yourself clean down there is not just about dignity; it helps keep our hospital wards clear. It typically takes between six and nine months to deliver an adaptation. I will not go into the reasons why, but in my council, we deliver about 150 such projects per year at an average of about £10,000 each.

I feel I have laboured the point, but the simple truth is that we do not have a large enough pool of adapted and improved homes to meet the demand. That is why the state invests in them. The local government department distributes yearly funding of over £720 million to local authorities for the purpose of improving homes and making them suitable for people with limitations. Some councils, such as my own, and other RSLs, top that money up. I suppose that making these improvements adds up to about £1 billion a year.

My amendment is about protecting the adapted stock—protecting that £1 billion per year investment—and about dignity for the most vulnerable in society. I have heard it said that this is an allocations issue and that this Bill is not going there, but I do not see it as an allocations issue in the sense that we are going to give preference to a particular veteran or a certain local person. This is about protecting the generality of the pool of adapted homes as society gets older, fatter and lives longer with debilitating impairments, so that there is a stock of homes where people can make the best of their lives and make their disabilities more bearable. If the state cannot recognise that simple truth, what is it for? Casually dismissing it as an allocations issue is wilful misdirection. We must grab this sufficiency issue now.

I have softened the text of my amendment so that the Minister can define the scope of what counts as a relevant adaptation. I have not been overly prescriptive, as I was in Committee. But it is really important that we protect that £1 billion a year investment, so that people of all abilities can have a home that they can get into and get on with.

Here is the problem my amendment seeks to remedy. When, as so often happens, a tenant passes away or moves on and the home is readvertised, with the exception of certain specialised sheltered accommodation, no credit can be given for those expensive and hard-won adaptations when a new family moves in. Tenants can ask them to be removed, and they do. It is crazy; it is a waste of money. It reduces the pool of adapted homes and is bad for everybody, especially the taxpayer, who funds the work twice—once to put it in, and again to take it out.

I will repeat the story I told in Committee of the brand new accessible home built with wide doors and low kitchen units, perfect for the wheelchair-bound resident. The first resident turned out to be exceptionally tall and, by and by, he tired of bending down to move the saucepans around the low-level hob. So, the council was obliged to replace the kitchen with a normal one. That is crazy—it should have been reserved for a wheelchair-bound resident in the first place.

The Bill purports to protect the supply of social homes. My council expert, Kevin Philcox—that man again —told me that, among housing standards professionals, protecting the adapted stock in the way I propose is both the Shangri-La and the holy grail of social housing policy in this country. That is quite a statement.

We have a new Prime Minister. He wants to make social housing a talismanic issue; this is du jour. I am suggesting something that would not cost anything, yet it would make huge strides in helping some of the most vulnerable people. It is here and now. I will not press this to a Division this evening, but I hope the Minister will take this to the department, and in turn to No. 10, which wants low-cost quick wins and can have them at Third Reading. I am serving this one up out of the goodness of my heart as a house-warming present for the new Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on their first day in charge. I beg to move.

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 80 is a retabling of an amendment I tabled in Committee. I will say a few words at the end in support of the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has just spoken.

My Amendment 80 would require the Secretary of State to review and report to Parliament on the extent to which former members of the Armed Forces are able to access social housing. I thank the Minister for meeting me to discuss this issue and for making clear her commitment to achieving progress on this. I also thank her hard-working officials for sending me a very helpful note about the data that is collected, which I note was sent extremely late in the evening, so I am sure they were working hard in advance of the Bill returning to the Lords today.

The Minister responded to my amendment in Committee and in more detail when we had the chance to meet. She explained that she sees the way of making progress on this as being incorporating it partly within the wider review of social housing allocation. I broadly support that proposal, which I think is a sensible way forward, but I have some questions that I would be grateful if she would respond to. The information that her officials sent me was about data. I was really asking for a lot more information so that we are able to scrutinise how the Government are getting on. The Government say they are making progress on this issue. We need to be able to see the impact of that. Are more of the Armed Forces community able to access social housing or is it having no impact whatever?

The data that was sent to me on local authority housing statistics reported that 2,649 households on housing registers are members of the Armed Forces community and have been given additional preference under local authorities’ allocation schemes and that this equated to around 0.2% of the 1.34 million households on housing registers in England. Do we really think that is picking up everybody who ought to be benefiting from being given an additional preference? How do the Government intend to ensure that all those in need report their need? How are they encouraged to report their need? Is the review being conducted going to meet the gap between the figure that we currently have and the almost certainly many others who are not benefiting from the measures that the Government have already brought forward? How are we going to monitor the progress that is made? How do we know that what gets delivered is going to be successful? How we measure success is an important question here.

My other point is about injured veterans who have a disability and require specialist or adapted accommodation, which relates to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, just moved. We spoke about this in private, so the Minister is aware that this is an issue very dear to my heart as my husband is a wheelchair user and other members of my family who have complex disabilities have struggled to access housing. One of them remained in hospital for a very long time waiting for accommodation that would meet his needs. This is a question about not just the waste of taxpayers’ money of taking out adaptions that are done but the extreme waste of taxpayers’ money of keeping people in hospital waiting for an appropriate property that would meet their needs.

I know the Minister has said—and I accept this—that not every disability is the same, and people will often require something that is personally adapted to meet their needs. However, there are certain aspects of adaptation that are likely to meet many people’s needs, including wider doorways and wet rooms, so stripping everything out does not make any sense whatever. I really hope the Minister will respond to that. It dovetails neatly with my point about making sure we are meeting the needs of veterans as well as others.

I do not intend to push my amendment to a vote, but I would be pleased to hear the Minister explain how the Government are going to respond to the point about the gap between what we currently know about and the people who are facing the changes that the Government have made, and how we are going to reach them and make progress on those aspects.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I tabled Amendment 81 and I support my noble friends on the Front Bench in their Amendments 83 and 84.

My amendment is trying to bring a bit of accountability back into housing associations. An issue that has been well described during various stages of the Bill is that housing associations are becoming enormous, with no connection to local areas. As a consequence, I thought—especially in line with the vibe of the new Prime Minister about devolution, local decision-making and people feeling involved—that it was time to get some democracy and democratically elected people back on these boards. Specifically, Amendment 81’s proposed new subsection (3) says:

“Regulations under subsection (2)(b) must ensure that no private registered provider’s board is comprised of a majority of elected local councillors”.


I anticipate that the Government will try to say, “This will put it back on the balance sheet”, but the answer is that it will not. The ONS—and I know this because there are some excellent officials over there; I have worked with some of them in the past—only puts things on the balance sheet because you have to have a majority. Control has to be with local government, which is why having a minority, not a majority, specifically in primary legislation, is key to that.

It feels that the direction of several housing associations is not going in the right way. The new Prime Minister has certainly been keen to talk about council housing—more so than social housing, although I appreciate that both will be in his mind—and that is where people would expect that, where there are special situations or a special kind of social housing or council housing, somehow there would be local involvement, not somebody who might be a couple of hundred miles away deciding what houses get sold, what get built and where they get built. For that reason, I hope the House may consider this during its consideration of the Bill.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Teather Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Regardless of the mechanism by which such changes are enacted, it is clear that Parliament must provide a proportionate and lawful access framework that supports safety-driven access where needed, while protecting residents’ rights through clear safeguards and the ability to challenge decisions. I know that representative bodies across the housing sector stand ready to work in partnership with the Government to develop an appropriate and effective solution.

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords, I am a co-signatory to Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, but I am also going to make a few remarks to wind up this group on behalf of our Benches. We are trying hard not to duplicate speakers, aware that everyone is desperate to see the football—all right, not everyone, but most people—and we have an awful lot to get through.

There have been a number of powerful and helpful contributions on this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Neate, has huge authority and experience in this area, and it is notable that the sector supports the amendment she has tabled, arguing that it is really needed. The heart of the Bill is around protection for victims of domestic violence, and my concern is that, without an amendment like this, we leave out one hugely important plank—an area that gives abusers the power to continue to exercise control and leave women without access to the protection we want to provide. I remind the Minister that this amendment has cross-party support, and it was good to hear the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, a former Home Secretary, advocate for it. I hope the Government will take this away and consider how it might be brought forward, perhaps at a later stage. As others have said, without this measure, child maintenance could be withheld—coercive control around money is often at the heart of abusive relationships—so I urge the Government to consider this amendment.

I listened carefully to the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, about Amendments 61 and 62. These amendments seem to us to make good points, particularly about access for safety checks. I was going to refer to the legal case the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, referred to— Southern Housing v James Emmanuel in October 2025 —arguing that, without parliamentary action, it is not clear whether housing associations have the power to force access for safety reasons. In the light of so many recent issues around fire, for example, we really have to tackle this issue and make it clear to social housing providers whether they have the power to take such action. We are also supportive of Amendment 61 and urge the Government to think about how we might ensure continuity for secure tenancy in cases where, on police advice, people are forced to leave their homes because of violence.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed so thoughtfully to this sensitive and highly important debate. As my noble friend Lady Scott said at Second Reading, we welcome the Government’s efforts to empower landlords and the courts to protect all victims of domestic abuse.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his amendments, which focus on the issues concerning tenants’ safety. His Amendment 61 asks us to consider threats to personal safety due not only to domestic abuse but to escalating disputes with neighbours or targeted youth and gang violence. It is right that we consider how tenants can be protected from those other threats, and Amendment 62 seeks to give providers greater powers to carry out legally required safety checks. I hope the Government will give those amendments their due consideration.

Amendment 63, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, seeks to ensure that vulnerable groups such as older tenants, veterans, care leavers, disabled people, those with mental health conditions and families with children in temporary accommodation have the necessary statutory provision. We will also touch on prioritising veterans in another amendment later today, but my noble friend is right that we should consider the specific needs of these groups too, and that we expect local authorities to do so as well.

Amendment 65, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, and was responded to by many others, raises a very important issue. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on this. Victims of financial abuse should be protected, not prevented from bidding for social housing. I would be interested to hear from the Government how that could be implemented by working together with local authorities, and how we can ensure that such protections are not themselves abused.

Amendment 64, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, seeks to ensure that the court system has the capacity and resources to effectively determine whether domestic abuse has taken place within a household with a social housing tenancy, an issue that a few of the speakers referred to. Court readiness was debated at length in relation to the Renters’ Rights Act, and it is important that the Government ensure that landlords and courts are ready for these changes too, so that victims are protected effectively.

Amendment 108, also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, raises the issue of which local authority is responsible for safeguarding needs when a tenant is moved out of an area of one local authority to another. Our amendment suggests that, where a local housing authority secures accommodation for tenants outside its area, that authority retains responsibility for safeguarding oversight and the costs involved. We welcome the insights of other noble Lords on this issue and what scenarios must be taken into account, but I hope the Minister will look into it and how the Bill could address it. I look forward to her response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 68, 69, 74, 81, 82, 84 and 113 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. All amendments in this group are united by a simple principle: social housing is a scarce and valuable resource. As we have heard in previous debates, demand exceeds supply in many parts of the country. It is therefore essential that allocation policies are fair, transparent and command public confidence. Data from the House of Lords Library shows that each new social rent home requires a grant of between £80,000 and £100,000 in order to be built. Those figures are for outside of London; I do not have the figures for London, but I suspect that they will be higher.

Amendment 68 seeks to strengthen the consideration given to local connections when allocating social housing. If we are to build homes, we need to bring the communities affected with us. As a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, I have frequently experienced local concern that housing is being built for Londoners, not locals. In many cases, that is not the case, but it is the concern. The Minister has related stories of the difficulties she faced from the locals when Stevenage was originated as a new town. Communities are more likely to support new housing development when they can see that local people who have lived in, worked in and contributed to the area are given appropriate consideration. Strong local connection policies can help maintain confidence in the system while ensuring that housing is directed to those with genuine ties to the community in the area.

Amendment 69 concerns eligibility for social housing among those who are not British citizens. Given the pressures that exist on housing waiting lists across the country, it is important that the Government are clear about who is eligible for social housing and that we ask whether reform is needed. Ultimately, this amendment is about the principles that underpin allocation of scarce public resources.

As of March 2023, there were approximately 1.33 million households on the local authority housing registers in England—the highest figures for a decade, and significantly higher than in recent years. Behind those statistics are families, pensioners, young people and vulnerable individuals, all waiting for access to secure and affordable accommodation. At the same time, 431,000 households in social housing had a lead tenant who was a non-UK national, representing around 10% of all social housing households. These figures inevitably raise legitimate questions about eligibility, prioritisation and fairness.

The purpose of this amendment is not to diminish the contribution that many non-citizens make to our country or to ignore the complexity of the individual circumstances. We are not saying that we should not support those who come to this country and contribute—but that does not mean that they should be entitled to potentially a lifetime council house at well below market rent. Indeed, that is why we want to have this debate—an honest and mature debate. When demand substantially exceeds supply, who should social housing be intended to serve? That reflects some of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s comments in the previous debate.

Many members of the public would reasonably expect that access to social housing should be closely linked to contribution, long-term commitment and belonging to this country. At the very least, Parliament and the public should have a clear understanding of who social housing is for. Public confidence in the social housing system depends greatly on the perception of fairness. I refer back to my comments that this requires a substantial upfront subsidy, which is particularly important at a time when waiting lists remain at historically high levels.

Amendment 74 similarly seeks greater clarity regarding the guidance on social housing eligibility in respect of certain foreign public officeholders and associated persons. This amendment arises in part from concerns highlighted by a recent high-profile case involving the First Lady of Sierra Leone. That case raised significant public concern and has rightly received widespread scrutiny. I appreciate that that has now been resolved, but it took 12 months from the public becoming aware. It is not about a single individual or a single country. Rather, where individuals hold senior public office overseas or are closely associated with those who do, is it not reasonable to ask whether existing eligibility rules are sufficiently clear and robust? We seek clarity from the Government on this. Are existing checks and information-sharing arrangements sufficient? Are local authorities equipped to identify circumstances in which an applicant’s position, assets or access to resources overseas may be relevant to eligibility decisions?

Amendment 81 would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds. It is important that eligibility criteria remain aligned with economic realities and reflect changes in incomes, housing costs and local circumstances. Thresholds that are not regularly reviewed risk becoming detached from the conditions they were designed to address.

Amendments 82 and 84 seek better information. One would require estimates of social housing demand arising from net migration. The other would require an assessment of the impact of temporary asylum accommodation on local social housing demand. Whatever views noble Lords may take on wider immigration policy, effective public policy depends on understanding demand. Local authorities cannot plan effectively unless they have a clear picture of the pressures affecting housing needs in their areas.

Amendment 113 would require housing register applications to be reviewed periodically to ensure that waiting lists remain accurate and up to date. Given the pressures on social housing supply, it is important that waiting lists reflect genuine and current need.

I was particularly interested in Amendments 93 and 94, concerning prison leavers and former offenders. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his long-standing work on prison reform and rehabilitation. The cost of reoffending both to society and to the public purse is enormous. Amendment 94 is a measured proposal that seeks to improve the sharing of information between prisons and local authorities, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this amendment forward.

Together, these amendments seek to ensure that social housing policy is informed by accurate information, fairer eligibility criteria and a clear understanding of housing demand, seeking to get local community support. I beg to move.

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 91 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. It is a modest amendment, asking simply that the Secretary of State conduct review of veterans’ access to social housing and report to Parliament within 12 months of this Act passing. It does not prescribe outcomes or impose new burdens on local authorities; it asks the Government to look and just tell us what they find. I recognise that much action has been taken here, but it is difficult for us to make reasonable judgments about what is working and what is not without us getting the data and being able to see how things are working out in practice.

I turn to the case for this amendment. Between 2018 and 2024, the number of homeless veteran households in England rose by nearly 25%, from 1,820 to 2,270, according to MHCLG’s homelessness data. The most recent figures, for 2024-25, record over 2,000 veteran households at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and those are only the ones who have approached a local authority for help. The ONS veterans survey suggests that the true number may be closer to 7,500 people, many of whom will never appear in any official count.

The Government have made some welcome changes in recent months, and I really acknowledge that. The December 2024 regulations removed the five-year sunset on the local connection exemption, ensuring that no veteran, regardless of how long ago they left service, can be turned away from a housing register simply for lacking local ties. Updated guidance now explicitly extends additional preference to veterans with service-related mental health conditions, including PTSD. Those are real improvements, and they deserve recognition, but guidance is not the same as accountability. Additional preference does not guarantee placement in the highest band and, in many authorities, even the highest bands involve long waits, because there is just not enough social housing stock. Shelter has noted that the rights veterans hold in practice depend heavily on individual local authority policy and can vary enormously from one area to the next.

There are particular concerns about veterans with service-related disabilities and complex needs. Around 16% of veteran households receiving new social lettings include someone injured or disabled as a result of their service. Specialist adapted accommodation is limited— I spoke about this at Second Reading. I feel particularly passionately about the need to improve the stock of adapted housing because my husband is disabled and we know how difficult it is to find any housing in the private sector or the social sector, which we have not benefited from. If there is simply not enough anywhere, it is difficult for anybody with any disability to do anything other than find themselves waiting for a long time on the social housing waiting list.

Operation Fortitude’s 900 units of veteran supported housing typically run at full capacity. A 2021 review found no new policy introductions for wounded, injured or sick veterans since 2016. The data picture is deeply inadequate. The Government do not publish national figures on how many veterans are on social housing waiting lists. MHCLG’s own lettings statistics acknowledge that between 18% and 44% of local authorities provide complete information on veterans on their registers—that is quite a variation. We cannot evaluate whether the system is working when we cannot see it clearly.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Teather Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate. There have been some thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions from all sides. I particularly enjoyed the passionate defence and argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, for regeneration to take priority. I hope the Minister heard those comments and will respond. I will confine my remarks to welcoming provisions in the Bill relating to survivors of domestic abuse and to raising two areas that would help the Government meet their ambition of tackling housing insecurity by supporting people to remain in their tenancies and communities, as the Minister spoke about at the outset.

First, I support the provisions in the Bill for survivors of domestic abuse. The barriers people face when trying to leave an abusive household, whether navigating tenancy arrangements, securing alternative accommodation or avoiding financial penalties, can keep them trapped in dangerous situations for a very long period. Provisions to tackle that are hugely welcome. It would be good to hear more about how the Government foresee these measures working for people in practice in a timely way. I imagine that will be part of our discussions in Committee.

I will focus on two areas that I think would help the Government achieve their ambitions of supporting greater housing security. They recognise that some people need lifetime secure tenancies and are repealing mandatory fixed terms created by the 2016 Act. However, a tenancy agreement alone does not limit people’s ability to stay in their home and community. We need systemic thinking about the kinds of homes we are building—whether they are appropriate for people’s needs as they age and as our climate changes, and how we support people to maintain health and well-being throughout their life. There is nothing in the Bill about that.

When I was an MP in Brent, around half of my constituency casework was about housing. The most desperate situations almost always involved families whose needs had changed because of disability. Families had to wait years for housing that met their needs. Without it, children were dependent on others to shower, get to the toilet and even get out of their property and get to school, when they should have been exploring their independence. For adults, it limited their ability to go to work, and it limited others in their household too.

I also have some personal experience of these struggles. My husband is a wheelchair user. When we could no longer make our flat work, after a series of mishaps, including being stuck inside for a week after the lift broke and nights sleeping on the sofa after the internal stairlift went on the blink again, we were, thankfully, financially secure enough to make the move elsewhere and pay for our own adaptations. But I have other relatives whose experience has been different. One who became a wheelchair user after a serious accident got stuck in hospital for months after he was ready for discharge because no accessible social housing was available. He was discharged several times to a Travelodge, without care, as it was the only available accommodation with level entry and a wet room. Both chaotic discharges resulted in fairly rapid further emergency hospital readmissions, with all the misery and NHS cost involved.

In my role as a board member of two NHS trusts, Barts and EPUT, both listed in my register of interests, I am conscious of the pressures on NHS trusts to discharge patients and of how, too often, lack of suitable housing is the main barrier. The Equality and Human Rights Commission states that one in five disabled people living in social housing is in accommodation that is unsuitable for their needs. The Centre for Ageing Better says that only 13% of homes in England in 2005 met the four most basic accessibility criteria for someone to visit or live independently in a property with dignity. Almost 13 million people may now be living in homes that do not meet their accessibility needs, with lack of accessible private accommodation only adding to the pressure on social housing lists. The Government’s recent healthy homes guidance recognises this, recommending that all new homes should meet accessible and adaptable standards under Part M4(2) of the building regs, yet the Bill contains no serious attempt to drive that transition at scale.

I will say something briefly about green space, because this too is an issue of inequality that too often disappears from housing debates. Social housing policy cannot concern itself simply with the existence of housing units in isolation from the environment around them. Where people live affects physical health, mental well-being, childhood development and community cohesion. Access to green space must not be an optional extra or the preserve of affluent neighbourhoods; it should be part of healthy social infrastructure.

The inequalities on this are stark. Research consistently shows that poorer communities and communities with higher proportions of social housing have significantly worse access to quality green space. Nearly 3 million people in England live more than a 10-minute walk from a public park, while those in deprived urban areas experience some of the worst environmental inequalities in the country. This matters because the evidence on health outcomes is overwhelming. Studies published in the BMJ have linked increased access to green space with significantly lower levels of preventable illness and premature mortality in deprived communities; in other words, access to nature is not an aesthetic nice to have, it is a core part of preventive public health policy.

There is much in the Bill that I support, but I am concerned that it lacks the scale and urgency that the situation demands and misses areas that would support the Government to meet their ambitions to tackle housing security. I look forward to the Minister’s response.