Localism Bill

My Lords, my Amendment 174 also concerns the Government’s proposal to introduce flexible tenancies of just two years for social housing tenants. The promotion of flexible tenure is based on the notion of non-disabled younger adults having access to other housing options, depending on income levels and employment. I am concerned that this approach is not appropriate for people on low or fixed incomes, especially those with disabilities who may have limited or no other housing options available. Many disabled people may also need adaptations to their homes or rely on informal support networks, which can take many years to establish. Many disabled people consider security of tenure to be essential to both their quality of life and their well-being. Over the years, many tenants build up local support networks and use nearby services which enable them to remain independent. I am therefore extremely concerned by the proposal to introduce two-year tenancies and the reluctance to make an exemption on the face of the Bill for certain groups, in particular those who are disabled. At the Report stage of the Bill in the House of Commons, the Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government, Andrew Stunell MP, outlined that the Government, "““propose that five years should be the minimum term in normal circumstances. We would expect it to be appropriate to offer less than five years only in very exceptional cases””." He also confirmed that, "““the tenure standards will provide specific protection for the vulnerable””.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/11; cols. 403-6.]" I welcome these comments as they show some recognition that disabled people require further protective measures. However, I do not think that standards alone are adequate enough to protect disabled people from flexible tenancies. Hence, Amendment 174 aims to place an explicit exemption on the face of the Bill for disabled and older people.