The Lord Bishop of Manchester:

Moved by The Lord Bishop of Manchester

105: Clause 101, page 134, line 11, leave out from “(homelessness)” to end of line 13Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment would make the Decent homes standard apply to all homeless temporary accommodation provided under the Housing Act 1996.

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. My wife and I own one apartment; it is in the West Midlands, and it is let out. Nothing in this Amendment or any others in this group would provide me with any advantage that I can foresee.

Amendment 105 seeks to extend the decent homes standard to temporary accommodation. As I said in Committee—and hence I can be extremely brief today—those in temporary accommodation are among the most vulnerable in our society. They are already battling against major disadvantages, and being placed in properties that fail the standard simply adds to their burden.

There are now over 150,000 children living in temporary accommodation, a number that continues to rise remorselessly. Often, these young people may be many miles from their school and are struggling in inadequate space to study for exams whose results will affect the rest of their lives. The very word “temporary” is something of a misnomer. It is not uncommon for such residence to last beyond a year. If any households need the protection of decent housing, it is these.

However, I accept that, whereas most tenants in the private rented sector are making their own arrangements with their landlord and hence require statutory protection to redress the power imbalance in that relationship, in the case of temporary accommodation there is another player, in the name of the local authority. If local authorities were rigorous in requiring the properties they use for temporary accommodation to meet a high standard, protection would be there. Moreover, there would be some types of property which, while acceptable for very short-term usage—though definitely not for the extended periods many are currently experiencing—would be intrinsically unable to meet the decent homes standard, such as bed-and-breakfast hotels.

Hence, I am not today minded to test the opinion of the House on this amendment, but I am rather looking to the Minister, in responding to the debate, to give some indication of what other mechanisms, apart from placing text on the face of the Bill, His Majesty’s Government might have in mind to ensure that, through the local authorities, the standard of housing used for temporary accommodation is the best we can deliver for some of our most vulnerable households.

Most other amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, relate to our military families. I would hope that these families, who often spend long, anxious periods separated from their loved ones serving in dangerous locations overseas, will receive as generous support as we can provide. Should the noble Baroness choose to test the mind of the House, she will have my support.

Finally, we are well aware of the dangers of damp and mould—the case in Rochdale has become notorious —so I also support Amendment 106A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I beg to move.

There are three amendments in my name in this group, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for putting their names to Amendment 106. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his wisdom and support, as ever, and the Minister for the many meetings she has held on this and other matters. We on these Benches are supportive of the other two amendments in this group and look forward to hearing the government response to both.

Amendment 106 is a crucial and necessary addition to the Bill that speaks to our fundamental duty to those who sacrifice so much for our nation’s security: the application of the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence accommodation. We on these Benches have pushed votes on amendments sparingly because we support the Government bringing forward this long-awaited and much-needed legislation to reform the private rented sector. But it is imperative that we do not leave any group behind, especially dedicated military personnel and their families.

This Government have already taken welcome first steps: the landmark deal in January to bring 36,000 military homes back into public ownership; the launch of a new defence housing review in February; and the April announcement of a new consumer charter for forces family housing. These are all positive developments but they are not enshrined in law, and this Bill is the opportunity to do just that. They are policy pledges, subject to the whim of goodness knows what future Governments, changes in ministerial priorities or economic pressures. The housing and morale of our Armed Forces should not remain dependent on policy changes alone.

The current state of service accommodation is in many cases unacceptable. There have been persistent reports of damp, mould, rats, inadequate maintenance and poor communication. Satisfaction levels with service family accommodation fell to their lowest reported levels in 2023. The Defence Select Committee has reported that one-third of single living accommodation and two-thirds of service family accommodation is essentially no longer fit for purpose. Reports have shown that service families were badly let down for many years under past housing contracts. This deplorable situation impacts recruitment and retention within our Armed Forces, undermining our national security in a time of global uncertainty.

Applying the decent homes standard through the Renters’ Rights Bill would provide a clear, legally binding benchmark for acceptable housing quality for service family accommodation. It would ensure accountability and establish a right to a decent home for those who serve our nation. They deserve homes fit for heroes, and Amendment 106 would be a vital step towards making that a reality.

This continues the work of Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Helen Maguire MP in the House of Commons. She is a former captain of the Royal Military Police who served in both Bosnia and Iraq, and she has tirelessly campaigned to ensure that MoD housing is included under the decent homes standard. Her experience, first-hand understanding of military life and dedication to our service personnel is invaluable. The Kerslake Commission report—we miss Lord Kerslake so much—Homes Unfit for Heroes, commissioned by John Healey MP, has laid bare how poor the standards in military housing are.

Amendment 106 would directly build upon and reinforce the work of both Helen Maguire MP and the recommendations of the Kerslake Commission. It moves beyond mere acknowledgement of the problem and the setting of targets, seeking to legally enforce the standards our service families deserve. The Minister has previously argued that this amendment is unnecessary because this approach is not right for service family accommodation, due to unique challenges such as access to secure sites. We have therefore set out in Amendment 109 some of the detail that could be added to the Bill to reflect these obstacles and considerations.

Amendment 119 is consequential on Amendment 109. I will not test the House on either of those, but they do provide some of the detail on how this could be done. However, if the Government do not accept Amendment 106 or some other tangible and strong process, I do intend to test the opinion of the House. Pride in our Armed Forces must mean pride in how we house them. We owe it to them to guarantee in the strongest possible terms that their homes meet a basic, dignified standard. This change would be a powerful and lasting declaration of our commitment to our service personnel and their families, and they deserve nothing less.

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 106, to which I have attached my name. For decades now, I have seen at close hand the deficiencies in service families’ accommodation. They range from an inability to get things fixed to serious problems with damp and mould. They are always irritating, and too often disgraceful. For years, I have listened to successive Governments undertake to get to grips with the issue. For decades, I have seen them fail to do so, not because they do not care—of course they care—but because of budgetary constraints, institutional inefficiencies, bureaucracy and other organisational issues.

I served in the military for 43 years and I have been out of it for nearly 15; and yet, the problems persist. So why should I, or anybody who comes after me, put any faith in any Government’s promises that are not backed up by enforceable measures? We have been told that we should not worry too much, because 90% of service families’ accommodation meets or exceeds the decent homes standard already. Well, even if that is so, does the Minister think that one in 10 service families living in substandard accommodation is acceptable? I do not. Perhaps she could clarify that point later.

In the debate in Another place, the Government maintained, as we have heard, that this amendment is impracticable because there would be problems with local authorities gaining access to service families’ accommodation behind the wire on military sites. We debated this very issue during the passage of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, when the Government saw no difficulties with civilian officials gaining access to sites behind the wire that are much more sensitive than service families’ accommodation. Frankly, this kind of bureaucratic brush-off is not worthy of such a serious debate on such a serious issue.

I refer the Minister to the recent strategic defence review, the conclusions of which have been accepted by the Government. It says that the

“transformation of UK Defence must ultimately be delivered by its people … Targeted Intervention is needed to tackle Defence’s workforce crisis”,

including

“prioritised investment … in accommodation that falls well short of the standards required”.

In the context of the future security of this country, can the Minister explain to the long-suffering families of service personnel why they are not entitled to the same formal protection being accorded to renters in the civilian sector? I think she will find that extraordinarily difficult to do. If we are forced to divide on this issue, I trust that the House will send a message loud and clear to those people that they are entitled to that protection and much more besides.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I put my name to Amendment 106 because of my experience in representing the Armed Forces in a previous role in the other place. Also, to be candid, I am sure that several of us have had family members in the Armed Forces over the years. It has always struck me that if it is good enough for social housing, and good enough for private rented housing, as is being put in through the Bill, why on earth is it not good enough for the homes of our brave men and women who put their lives on the line every time they don that Armed Forces uniform?

Furthermore, in my experience, undoubtedly the quality of housing—I will not pretend it is homogenous; right across the country, some fantastic new accommodation is being built—is unfortunately a key factor in why people leave the Armed Forces. I will use the example of Rock Barracks, home to 23 Parachute Engineers, just outside Woodbridge. That is the kind of base where people are not there for lifetime basing. The strategy going ahead is that once people are part of a lifetime base, they might be able to buy their own home rather than be necessarily in Armed Forces accommodation. That does not happen with some of these specialist regiments. Actually, the base commander was one of the people who invited me in when I was getting letters from constituents who were really irritated about what was going on in their homes and how it was taking time to be fixed.

Of course, that can be fixed with a better company, but the key point here is that putting this into legislation not only gives reassurance to our soldiers and officers who are thinking about their families—they should not even have to think about what is going on with their families while they are abroad—but gives the families the assurance that they can have a very clear legal expectation about the state of their homes and what should be done if they are not in that state.

Going further, welfare is of course an element in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, and I think the Government have talked about housing. But the legislation specifically refers to matters where the Secretary of State can specify, and if it is believed that these matters might go against the safety of somebody or against national security, the commissioner can be stopped from investigating. Frankly, we all know how long it takes to get a commissioner to do anything. It is better to have the high standard in the first place. I am very conscious that the Government may try to say, “Things will be better in the future”. I am in a position now to say that enough is enough. We will be very happy if the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, pushes this to a Division; I will certainly be in the voting Lobbies with her this afternoon.

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 106A in this group. I also echo fully the support for Amendments 106, 109 and 119, which is consequential, from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I thank the right reverend Prelate for his support as well.

Amendment 106A probes the Government to ensure that they recognise the role of both temperature and humidity in ensuring comfort and safety and preventing hazardous levels of damp and mould, which pose significant health risks, whether to children, the elderly or other vulnerable groups. I thank NexGen Carbon Zero for its research and input, and I declare my interest as a private landlord.

This amendment seeks to draw an explicit link between temperature and humidity and damp and mould hazards. Can the Minister confirm that the Government recognise the fundamental importance of keeping homes at a safe temperature and humidity level to avoid those hazards? There are indeed preventive solutions that can help maintain safe temperature and humidity levels to help tackle one of the main root causes of damp and mould problems. As an example, I am told that infra-red heating technology can eradicate severe damp and mould in a week by drying out internal walls and reducing humidity levels, and can even monitor on a room-by-room basis to automatically switch on if levels become dangerous. With many households currently struggling to adequately heat their homes, as a result of either losing their winter fuel payment or the combination of that with rising living costs, temperature and humidity control clearly has a role in preventing the hazards that these problems could otherwise cause. Indeed, I argue that this is more important than ever.

The 2023-24 English Housing Survey showed that private rented homes are nearly twice as likely as those in the social rented sector to experience problems with damp. The proportion of damp homes containing at least one occupant with a health condition has risen from around a third in 2013 to nearly a half in 2023-24.

Although stronger protections are needed to safeguard tenants from the dangerous health effects of damp and mould, we have to be concerned that many private landlords, especially smaller ones, may struggle to afford effective remediation. So the Bill, which is extending Awaab’s law to the private rented sector, perhaps needs to be supplemented by a funding package of remediation to help landlords with the cost of repairs, or at least maybe some VAT exemption on some of those mechanisms. There is of course a risk that landlords would be unfairly penalised, but the overriding concern is to make sure that tenants are not living in unsafe conditions.

That brings me to Amendments 106, 109 and 119. Our military and service personnel surely should be prioritised over other groups when it comes to supplying decent housing and decent homes. Frankly, it seems shameful that military and service personnel housing standards are so significantly rated as unsatisfactory. They put their lives on the line for this country. If the noble Baroness presses her amendment, I will be very happy to support it. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

My Lords, first, I support Amendment 105, from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I am very glad to support him; he and I have worked together quite a lot on homelessness in York, where some noble Lords assisted us to make sure that those who were homeless could get a house where they would have a bed and a little kitchen, so that they had a bit of independence. The standard that we expect for others ought to be given to the homeless as well.

I also support Amendment 106, movingly spoken to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. When we had a debate in your Lordships’ House on the duty of having regard to the covenant, I told your Lordships a story; I think some of you were not here, and if you have forgotten, I can remind you—I will be very brief. A gentleman who had survived in Afghanistan in the Parachute Regiment returned to Yorkshire. He had been injured, and therefore could not go back to service. He visited four widows who had already been rehoused out of service accommodation because their husbands had died in the line of duty. Their accommodation, they said, was not any better than it had been in the service, so he said, “We should make the point very clearly by having a parachute jump”. At my age, people were advising me not to do it, but we did it, and we landed. When I got home, there was a retired soldier who had just sold his business. He was the first to give to this fundraising for four houses for widows. He gave £50,000 pounds. Of course, the amount went up, and I am very grateful to all those people who supported us.

If there is a duty in the covenant, it should apply to all our service personnel, and their accommodation ought to be as good as the instruments they use when they go to war. There is a similar story of the Yorkshire Regiment, where widows were put into accommodation that was not suitable. It breaks your heart. We signed a covenant, if your Lordships remember, to all the people who are in the service—Army, Air Force and others—that we have a duty to support them. This amendment is a challenge to all of us: we passed that covenant and we had better show up.

My Lords, I speak to this group on the decent homes standard, a commitment to ensure that all tenancies, regardless of tenure or circumstance, have access to safe, healthy and secure housing. In particular, I turn to Amendments 106 and 119, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. She, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lady Coffey highlighted the persistent and ongoing issues that military and service accommodation faces.

We are in no doubt that those who serve our country and whose families bear the burdens of that service deserve decent homes. It is regrettable that, despite the application of the decent homes standard to military housing on a non-statutory basis since 2017, serious concerns persist about the condition and upkeep of military accommodation. These amendments offer Parliament an opportunity to reaffirm that military and service families should not be left behind.

We therefore welcome the commitments made in the strategic defence review on 2 June 2025, in which the Government announced an additional £1.5 billion in funding for our service family accommodation, bringing a total investment of £7 billion. Alongside this, the development of a new defence housing strategy and consumer charter, including timelines for repairs, named housing officers and a strengthened complaints process, is a step in the right direction. But such undertakings must be matched by effective and timely delivery. We would be grateful for greater clarity from the Minister on when the additional investment will begin to make a difference on the ground; what time- frame the Ministry of Defence has set for the implementation of these reforms; and how progress will be assessed, monitored and reported back to Parliament. Commitments of this scale demand not only ambition but accountability. Our Armed Forces and their families deserve more than expressions of appreciation; they deserve action and results. These amendments speak to that imperative, and that is why we are pleased to support them.

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Altmann, for their amendments regarding the decent homes standard. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for his experience and knowledge, which he showed in his contribution. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.

Amendment 105 would take away the power of Ministers to set out in regulations the types of temporary homelessness accommodation that the decent homes standard would apply to. I completely understand the sentiment and intent behind these amendments. The Government intend to apply the decent homes standard to as much temporary accommodation as possible. Indeed, the consultation that we launched on the decent homes standard, which was published on 2 July and closes on 10 September, makes this very clear and asks for further information on it.

As I said in Committee, we have to strike the right balance between improving standards and avoiding risk to supply. Given the pressure on local authorities, which we all understand, there is sometimes no choice but to use forms of temporary accommodation, such as commercial hotels. It may not be possible for this to meet all decent homes standard requirements—for example, where there are no kitchen facilities. We want to avoid a situation where applying the decent homes standard could mean that such accommodation can no longer be used, even where there is no alternative, as this could make things worse for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, not better. Of course, the long-term solution is to provide a much greater quantity of affordable housing. In the meantime, we have to make sure we do not shut off vital resources to local authorities.

I hope that the right reverend Prelate is reassured by the Government’s intention to apply the decent homes standard to as much temporary accommodation as possible and to deliver the affordable housing that we know we need to solve the problem in the longer term, and that he recognises that the most practical way to make this change to the decent homes standards is through a regulation-making power. I therefore ask that he withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 106 would bring Ministry of Defence service family accommodation within the scope of the decent homes standards measures in the Bill, including enforcement of this standard by local authorities. No one, especially me, is going to disagree that those who defend our country deserve to live in decent homes. As I said in Committee, the Government absolutely recognise that action is required to tackle the poor state of forces’ housing. That is why we are already taking decisive steps to remedy the situation that we have inherited— I gently remind the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that their party was in government just over a year ago, and we inherited this situation from them.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Ministry of Defence has concluded a landmark deal to bring military housing back into public ownership. It is also developing a defence housing strategy, which will be published later this year, that will set out further steps to bring about a renewal of military housing to restore it to the quality housing that we all want to see for our armed services.

As my Right Honourable Friend John Healey, the Secretary of State for Defence—and a great expert on housing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, acknowledges—said in his Statement to the other place on the strategic defence review,

“we will invest £7 billion of funding during this Parliament for military accommodation, including £1.5 billion of new money for rapid work to deal with the scandal of military family homes

He has also announced a consumer charter that will introduce new consumer rights for families in military homes. The Defence Secretary is instructing the MoD to immediately plan improvements to enhance service family homes after the years of neglect from which they have suffered. Improvements set out in the charter will be in place by the one-year anniversary of the announcement to buy back military homes, made last December, with the final detail to be shared in the defence housing strategy later this year.

In relation to standards, the MoD already uses the decent homes standard as a benchmark and applies its own decent homes-plus standard as the target standard for service family accommodation. The MoD is reviewing this standard in line with recommendations from the Kerslake review and the House of Commons Defence Committee.

Regarding the amendment, it is not a workable approach to bring MoD accommodation within the scope of local authority enforcement. As I said in Committee, local authorities would face major challenges in trying to gain that access to inspect the thousands of properties that are behind the wire on secure sites. I heard the comments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, but I think that this would create a real issue. In addition, the decent homes standard provisions in the Bill apply to England only, while service personnel are located across the UK and overseas.

The amendment would therefore result in a complex and fragmented system and a lack of parity for service personnel as different standards and enforcement processes would apply to MoD accommodation depending on where it was located. The Government are already taking substantial steps to improve the quality of military housing. The defence housing strategy, to be published later this year, will set out in detail our plans for doing that. Given the major enforcement challenges that would result from the noble Baroness’s amendment, the approach that the Government are taking is a better and far more practical way of achieving her very laudable aim, which we support, of providing homes fit for heroes.

Amendments 109 and 119 would require regulations to be made establishing a new military homes standard that would apply to all Ministry of Defence accommodation. Amendment 109 mandates that this military homes standard must be higher than the decent homes standard that will apply to privately rented homes. It is important that service personnel and their families have accommodation of the high quality that they deserve. However, these amendments are not practical. They are unworkable and risk undermining the outcomes that they seek to achieve.

For example, the proposed prohibition on category 2 hazards in Amendment 109 is technically infeasible. Under the housing health and safety rating system, every home will, by definition, contain some category 2 hazards, even if they pose minimal risk. Enshrining such a prohibition in law would create a standard that is impossible to meet in practice, leading to legal uncertainty and administrative burden.

The amendments also fail to account for the specialised nature of single living accommodation, provided by the MoD to single service personnel or those who are not accompanied by their families. These homes generally include some shared facilities and, as a result, are unlikely to meet some parts of the decent homes standard. The MoD has therefore introduced its own defence minimum standard, which sets commensurate standards of decency while taking account of the specialised function of single living accommodation. If the military homes standard were an enhanced version of the decent homes standard, as the amendment proposes, much single living accommodation would not meet it. Applying this standard to this accommodation, as proposed by the amendment, would significantly limit the ability to provide such accommodation, undermining its critical role in the deployment of our Armed Forces.

It is also not clear how this proposed military homes standard would be enforced. Amendment 109 does not specify what authorities should enforce the standard. As defence accommodation is situated in all four nations of the United Kingdom, and overseas, the result would likely be a complex system, with different authorities being responsible for enforcement in different locations. This lack of consistency would make it more difficult and confusing for service personnel to raise complaints about accommodation. As a result, these amendments would not achieve the desired outcome of improving the quality of MoD accommodation. The proposed approach also risks having negative impacts on service personnel, their families and, crucially, the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces.

I have already set out the strong action that the Government are taking to tackle poor-quality Armed Forces accommodation, which will achieve the intended outcomes of these amendments while avoiding the risks that are created by them. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, not to move her amendments.

On Amendment 106A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I can confirm that the Government fully recognise the importance of addressing damp and mould in rented homes, and the role that humidity as well as temperature can have in causing such issues. Clause 101 lists matters that the regulations setting out decent homes standard requirements may cover. This amendment would add specific references to humidity and damp and mould to this list. However, the requirements that can be set in regulations are not limited to those which are set out in this list. It is our firm intention that the new decent homes standard includes specific requirements on damp and mould. Indeed, we published our consultation on the content of the standard on 2 July. This consultation proposes that the standard be expanded from four criteria to five, with the new criterion requiring landlords to ensure that their properties are free from damp and mould.

As set out in government guidance and the decent homes standard consultation, we recognise that deficiencies in buildings—such as poor ventilation, mentioned by the noble Baroness—can lead to excess humidity, which can cause dangerous damp and mould. These should be addressed to ensure that homes are safe and decent. Noble Lords will have heard me explaining at Oral Questions the other day that the infuriating term “lifestyle issues” that is used for tenants who are suffering with damp and mould has to end. There is nearly always a buildings-related issue for damp and mould. We need to address those issues.

In light of this, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, sees that the Government take the issues that she has raised very seriously and are taking firm steps to address them. I therefore argue that her amendment is not necessary and ask her not to move it.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I thank my former boss, my noble and right reverend friend Lord Sentamu, for his support. His passion on all matters that concern those in the greatest need in our society is well known in your Lordships’ House. I thank him for demonstrating it once again today.

I thank the Minister for her response to my Amendment. I think that we are not very far apart. With those reassurances, I will not press the matter any further. I will leave it for the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to say whether she too is satisfied with the response to her amendments. The case for our military families remains compelling. If the House divides on Amendment 106, I shall be voting with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. But, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 105 withdrawn.