Lords Advance Social Housing Bill Amid Thames Water Scrutiny

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords took oral questions on integrated care board budgeting, online harms linked to physique‑enhancing products, extremism policy, and foreign interference. The House received first readings of three Bills and approved several statutory instruments without division. Peers questioned a Commons Statement on Thames Water, including the proposed recapitalisation, the threshold for special administration, and plans for a single water regulator. Most time was spent in Committee (2nd day) on the Social Housing Bill [HL], with probing amendments on right‑to‑buy replacements, estate regeneration and stock use, protections for domestic abuse victims, tenancy models, allocations policy, maintenance and accessibility, shared ownership, adapted housing and provider governance. Many amendments were withdrawn after ministerial assurances; a commencement amendment (122) was agreed and the Bill was reported with amendments.

Detailed Summary

Oaths and affirmations

The House recorded that “Lord Camoys and the Earl of Minto took the oath, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.”. No further action was required.

Integrated Care Boards: Budgets – Oral Question

Baroness Merron confirmed that the Government would not impose a statutory minimum ring‑fence for community-based transformation: “We do not intend to mandate a statutory minimum ring-fence for community-based transformation.”. In response to Lord Scriven’s concerns on transparency and learning‑disability spend, she said systems were “requiring better data and data analysis.”. Peers asked about running‑cost reductions, mental health/primary care investment reporting, board composition and waits. The Minister cited a per‑head running‑cost cap by 2026‑27 and efficiencies from clustering: ICBs must reduce their allowance “to a cap of £19.40 per head of weighted population for the financial year 2026-27” and can “pool budgets, cut their running costs and be more efficient.”. She described a shift to neighbourhood health—“This is actually a change… a major shift”—and set an ambition that “by 2028-29, at least 80% of community health service activity should take place within 18 weeks”. She said the NHS workforce plan “will be published in the not too distant future.”. No decisions were taken.

Social media: substances unfit for human consumption – Oral Question

Baroness Lloyd of Effra said that under the Online Safety Act, “platforms must take proactive steps to prevent and remove illegal content”, with Ofcom empowered to act where influencer‑promoted content encourages children to consume harmful substances. She confirmed that “Fraud is illegal and a priority offence under the Online Safety Act”, addressed cross‑regulator roles (MHRA/OPSS) and noted a DBT consultation on online marketplace safety. On advertising verification, she said Ofcom’s next consultation on categorised services is due “next month” and “should cover a number of the issues” raised. The Government also reaffirmed support for clean sport and the application of children’s‑harms guidance to sponsored content. No decisions were taken; Ofcom enforcement and cross‑government coordination were emphasised.

State of Extremism report – Oral Question

Lord Hanson of Flint confirmed that, “Where necessary and proportionate, the report will include examples of those propagating extremism and where they have been disrupted.”. He said the report would be published “by the end of this calendar year” as part of a reset of counter‑extremism tools and partnerships. Peers asked about Prevent, free‑speech safeguards, charity oversight, cohesion and campus antisemitism. The Minister stressed that Prevent targets vulnerability, not Muslims per se—“The purpose of Prevent is to help identify those individuals who are vulnerable and at risk.”—and said the Macdonald review on hate crime and public order would be published “before the Summer Recess.”. He said DCMS is looking at “strengthening the Charity Commission’s powers to tackle extremist and terrorist exploitation” and highlighted the social cohesion action plan, Protecting What Matters. No decisions were taken.

Foreign interference in UK democratic processes – Oral Question

Baroness Anderson of Stoke‑on‑Trent said the Government is “implementing the counter political interference and espionage action plan through the Defending Democracy Taskforce” and keeps threats “under review every day.”. She cautioned that “it is dangerous to jump to any conclusions on the basis of a single report” and that the UK would “draw our own conclusions.”. Ministers cited operational election security units during recent and current polls and noted that since October 2024 the Government has “exposed and sanctioned 38 individuals and organisations responsible for delivering Russian information warfare.”. She offered to facilitate official meetings following a reported hostile‑state cyberattack on a party. No decisions were taken.

First Readings: Citizenship Education Bill [HL]; Commercial Organisations and Public Authorities Duty (Human Rights and Environment) Bill [HL]; Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Three Bills were introduced and ordered to be printed. The Citizenship Education Bill would “create an entitlement to citizenship education from primary to the end of secondary education”. Baroness Young of Hornsey’s Bill would place a due‑diligence duty on organisations to prevent human‑rights and environmental harms. The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill was brought from the Commons. Next steps (Second Readings) were not stated in the transcript.

Motions to Approve: statutory instruments

The House approved multiple instruments without division, noting Grand Committee consideration. These included: the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (“Motion agreed.”); Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2026 (“Motion agreed.”); Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026 (“Motions agreed.”); and Digital Waste Tracking (England) Regulations 2026 (“Motion agreed.”).

Thames Water – Ministerial Statement (made in Commons; questioned in Lords)

The Secretary of State’s letter to Ofwat set out early concerns that the current recapitalisation proposal does not sufficiently protect customers and the environment: “I do not believe that the current proposal goes far enough to protect customers and the environment.”. Specific concerns were “the unfair cost to customers” and delays to “vital infrastructure investments” and “environmental improvements”. The Statement also proposed reforms to create “a single powerful water regulator” with “stronger, active supervision”. In the Lords, Baroness Hayman of Ullock stressed Ofwat’s independence and the high legal bar for a special administration regime: it can be initiated “only if the company becomes insolvent, or” is in serious breach of duties. She said SAR would not be a bailout and that full creditor repayment was “very unlikely”. She confirmed Ofwat remains responsible until the new regulator is established. No division; next steps are Ofwat’s evaluation, potential consultation, and work on the forthcoming water Bill.

Social Housing Bill [HL] – Committee (2nd day): Right‑to‑buy replacement and transparency (Amendment 53 and related)

Baroness Thornhill sought annual local reporting of right‑to‑buy (RTB) sales versus new social homes to enable scrutiny, saying the group “goes to the heart of the Bill’s central test”. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said the formal one‑for‑one RTB target had been removed but the Government wants councils to exceed replacement and deliver a “generational increase,” adding “we now expect a net gain of around 18,000 homes” over 2026‑36 rather than a 26,000 loss. She pointed to published RTB and affordable‑housing statistics. Outcome: Amendment 53 withdrawn; Amendments 54–56 not moved.

Social Housing Bill [HL]: Estate regeneration, tenancy fraud, stock management, empty homes, and mayoral accountability (Amendments 57, 75, 83, 107, 116, 117D)

Baroness O’Neill of Bexley proposed Government proposals within 12 months to support estate regeneration. The Minister replied that “estate regeneration is complex and highly place-specific” and should proceed through existing programmes and planning frameworks. She confirmed a review into stock management—covering underoccupation, overcrowding, long‑term voids and tenant mobility—“is already under way”, and said landlords already have powers to tackle tenancy fraud. On empty homes, she favoured local flexibility over a statutory five‑year plan duty. On mayoral accountability, she confirmed there is “no recall mechanism for mayors,” but accountability is being strengthened and funding deployed with the GLA, including £324 million for a City Hall developer fund. She later clarified the “median of 30 days” between tenancies. Outcomes: Amendment 57 withdrawn; 58–58B not moved.

Social Housing Bill [HL]: Domestic abuse protections, safety access, court readiness, and safeguarding (Amendments 61–65, 64, 108)

On continuity of secure tenancy where tenants move due to threats (Amendment 61), the Minister agreed that “tenants should never fear losing their security” and offered to consider the issue further and meet. On landlords’ access for safety checks (Amendment 62), she noted injunction routes exist but said, “I intend to convene interested stakeholders” on emergency access. On Amendment 65 (disregarding housing debt caused by abuse), she said guidance would be updated to address these barriers—“We want to put that right”—and offered discussions before Report. She added up to £50 million is being invested to modernise civil courts for the Bill’s changes. On safeguarding (Amendment 108), she cited existing cross‑boundary duties and letters to authorities, with reforms planned to tackle out‑of‑area placements. Outcomes: Amendments 61, 62 and 65 were withdrawn/not moved after assurances.

Social Housing Bill [HL]: Forced sale powers repeal; lifetime vs fixed‑term tenancies; ‘pay‑to‑stay’; anti‑social behaviour (Clause 14 stand‑part; Amendments 66, 77, 78, 70)

Ministers explained the repeal of never‑commenced powers to force sale of higher‑value vacant council homes, as the policy would have harmed local spending plans and delivered a net loss of social housing. They also repealed uncommenced provisions to require most new secure tenancies to be fixed‑term, stating: “we want to make it clear that we support lifetime tenancies” while allowing fixed terms in specific schemes. A proposal to re‑enable higher rents for higher‑income tenants (‘pay‑to‑stay’) was rejected; the 2016 powers “were never implemented,” with discretionary approaches available. On anti‑social behaviour, the Minister cited strengthened powers and shorter notice for the mandatory ASB ground under the Renters’ Rights Act. Outcomes: Clauses 14–16 agreed; probing amendments not moved.

Social Housing Bill [HL]: Eligibility and allocations (local connection, non‑citizens, veterans, ex‑offenders, data) (Amendments 68, 69, 74, 81, 82, 84, 113, 91, 93, 94)

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage noted that in 2024‑25, “89% of lead tenants in new social housing lettings were UK nationals” and reiterated that “asylum seekers are not eligible for social housing”. She said local connection tests are for councils to set within their schemes, and veterans already receive exemptions from local connection tests and can get additional preference for urgent need. On prison leavers, she said prisons and probation are under a statutory “duty to refer” to local housing authorities, and outcomes data is collected annually. The Government resisted centralising income thresholds or requiring periodic register reviews, cautioning about perverse incentives and emphasising local discretion. Outcome: Amendments were withdrawn or not moved after debate.

Social Housing Bill [HL]: Maintenance standards, accessibility and overheating (Amendments 76, 100, 102, 85, 117C, 119B)

On maintenance and repairs (Awaab’s Law), Ministers said they “have already published guidance for social landlords on timeframes for repairs” and will update it as further phases commence. On overheating, they pointed to Building Regulations: “Part O… requires that new residential buildings… are built to mitigate the risk of overheating” and already applies to new social housing. On accessibility and inclusion, the Equality Act and regulatory standards require “fair access to, and equitable outcomes from, housing and landlord services for all tenants”. Building Regulations M4(1)–M4(3) apply to accessibility, with proposed NPPF changes so plans must set proportions of M4(2)/M4(3) and that M4(2) “should never be lower than 40%.”. Ministers declined to tie commencement to new digital‑accessibility regulations. Outcome: Amendments withdrawn/not moved.

Social Housing Bill [HL]: Shared ownership (Amendments 79, 105, 106)

Peers raised concerns about service charges, staircasing costs and risk‑sharing, citing external reports. Ministers said shared ownership remains central to the £39 billion programme and that recent reforms allow smaller staircasing increments; the scheme is kept under review, but a formal statutory review was not considered necessary. They added that “shared ownership model leases are already available,” with fundamental clauses required for grant‑funded properties. Outcome: Amendment 79 withdrawn; related amendments not moved.

Social Housing Bill [HL]: Protections for adapted social housing (Amendment 89)

Lord Fuller proposed prioritising already‑adapted homes for those who would benefit, to protect public investment in adaptations. The Minister agreed it is important that authorities make “the best use of the homes they have available” and said the issue will be explored in the forthcoming update to allocations guidance. Outcome: Amendment withdrawn.

Social Housing Bill [HL]: Social purpose and governance; tenant voice and scrutiny (Amendments 90, 103, 110–115)

Peers probed codifying providers’ social purpose, tenant board representation, local scrutiny powers and performance reporting. Ministers pointed to the regulator’s consumer standards on engagement, anti‑social behaviour and transparency, noting that the regulator can issue codes of practice. They said tenant satisfaction measures already provide comparable data and cautioned against duplicative statutory duties or reporting burdens. On inspections, they said a tenant‑trigger “risks cutting across this approach,” diverting resources and undermining independence. Outcomes: Amendment 90 withdrawn; others not moved.

Social Housing Bill [HL]: Consequential powers (Clause 17) – Amendments 118, 119

Peers questioned Clause 17’s power to amend or repeal earlier Acts via regulations. The Government noted the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s conclusion: “There is nothing in this Bill which we would wish to draw to the attention of the House”, and said any change to primary legislation would be “subject to the affirmative procedure”. Outcome: Amendment 118 withdrawn; 119 not moved; Clause 17 agreed.

Social Housing Bill [HL]: Commencement – Amendment 122

The House agreed a technical commencement change so the new clause on the exercise of the right to buy by residential property owners “commence two months after Royal Assent”. Outcome: “Amendment 122 agreed.”. The Bill was reported with amendments and the House adjourned at 9.11 pm.