Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin. I welcome the proposed legislation regarding social housing and health outlined in the King’s gracious Speech, as I believe that they are inextricably linked. I declare my interest as chair of the Look Ahead housing association, which delivers not only housing but social care for people with mental health and learning disabilities. The Government have committed to several housing plan reforms in future parliamentary Sessions and have done so in the past, as has been referred to earlier, but particular changes are now proposed in relation to making commonhold a default tenure for new flats. This is excellent news but leaves many tenants in leasehold flats in very difficult situations regarding increasing costs, as other noble Lords have said. The proposed remediation Bill is intended to accelerate the removal of unsafe cladding and strengthen protections for residents. This will be essential to ensure that works are completed swiftly. However, the proposals are unclear about protecting current tenant-owners encouraged to buy shared ownership with housing associations prior to the recent changes in legislation. Those individuals remain accountable for significant costs, as was illustrated only yesterday in the news about tenants of properties in the former Olympic village. It illustrated the significant stress and challenges facing many people in regard to these issues. Can the Minister explain how this issue will be resolved under the new legislation? Any new social housing to be built must be designed so that families can live safely and healthily in their homes. As others have said, it remains a scandal that we still have children living in hotel rooms with parents, with the uncertainty that temporary accommodation creates and its associated mental and physical health problems. What is the Government’s timescale for ensuring that no child remains in temporary accommodation for more than a month, thus enabling them to stay in the same school for significant periods? I welcome the announcement that legislation is to be introduced to abolish NHS England and believe that significant cost savings that can be redirected into patient care. However, the Bill appears to omit reference to parts of the healthcare system—most notably the need to provide NHS dentistry more equitably across England—and does not make significant reference to the fact that the new Mental Health Act will need to be implemented, and that this will be costly. Can the Minister explain where responsibilities for such services, particularly specialist services, will be held in the new system? Will they be at the department or with ICBs? What information will be provided on the role of regional teams? Like others, I warmly welcome the single patient record. The introduction of new digital platforms is to be commended and will make access to information much swifter for every health and care provider with regard to individual patients. However, much of the NHS is commissioned from providers who are not part of the main NHS. For example, acute mental health services, radiology reviews and cataract surgery are provided in independent services commissioned by the NHS. What is the intention of the Government in terms of independent providers having access to, and the ability to add information to, the single patient record? I suggest that this is an issue that will need careful exploration and possible amendments to the Bill, both for the protection of the information in patients’ records and to ensure that information on assessment and treatment from all services paid for by the NHS can be used and incorporated into the single patient record. Finally, as the Minister said earlier, the last Session passed vital legislation on public health measures for future generations on tobacco and vapes. I am concerned that this Session makes no reference to the important issue of alcohol harms and what might be done to improve this scenario. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment on whether a minimum unit price for retail sales, not those in hospitality, might be considered to reduce the health damage caused by alcohol abuse and addiction and the associated costs of treatment in our health service.