On 15th July 2025, the Bishop of Manchester moved his amendment 105 to the Renters Rights Bill, and spoke in support of two further amendments:
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: 105: Clause 101, page 134, line 11, leave out from “(homelessness)” to end of line 13
Member’s explanatory statement: This 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.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: 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.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab, DHCLG): 111: Clause 126, page 156, line 26, after “subsection (3)” insert “or (3A)”
Member’s explanatory statement: This is consequential on the amendment in my name which would add the new subsection (3A) to this clause.
My Lords, government Amendments 111, 112 and 113 to Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 and Clause 126 of the Renters’ Rights Bill amend the requirements for entering premises without a warrant for the purposes of certain enforcement action. Notice to the property owner or landlord will now be provided after the entry has taken place, within a reasonable amount of time, rather than at least 24 hours before. The 24-hours prior notice requirement for tenants and occupiers will remain, so residents will always be aware that a power of entry is going to be exercised, whether that is under Section 239 of the Housing Act 2004 or Clause 126 of the Bill.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for raising this issue in Committee. We have given considerable thought to his proposal, as well as to feedback from local authorities. Local authorities have told us that providing notice can result in unscrupulous landlords hiding evidence of breaches, intimidating tenants, and temporarily fixing issues before reverting to non-compliance. We recognise that landlords will want to be aware of any inspection, and indeed the outcome of the inspection. The local authority will therefore need to provide notice after the inspection has taken place and engage with the landlord about any issues raised as a result.
We have heard, throughout the passage of this Bill, about the importance of local housing authorities having the right resources and tools to enforce. Making this change will make a real difference in their ability to address unsafe or hazardous living conditions more promptly and tackle unscrupulous landlords. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. I declare my interest: I own, with my wife, one apartment in the West Midlands. It will not help me in any way if this amendment is passed, but I still think it is the right thing to do, for exactly the reasons that the Minister has given—ones that I myself pressed in Committee. I am very grateful to her and her colleagues for meeting with me in the meantime, and for taking up the amendment at this stage. I urge noble Lords, if these matters are put to a Division of the House, to support the government amendments.
Baroness Thornhill (LD):
115: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause—
“Repeal of right to rent(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) Omit Sections 20 (residential tenancy agreement) to 37 (interpretation).(3) Omit Schedule 3 (excluded residential tenancy agreements).”Member’s explanatory statement
The new clause would abolish the right to rent provision introduced by the Immigration Act 2014.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I added my name to this amendment. I am grateful for the powerful speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Lister of Burtersett. They have left me with little to say, except that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has given me a cue with her words about the repentant sinner. I will take us even further back in history to the book of Genesis and the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham argues with God against the destruction of the cities, and God agrees that he will not destroy the cities if only 10 people can be found who are righteous. The principle that established, which passes down into our present law, is that it is better to let the guilty off than for the innocent to be punished.
That is what this particular amendment is about, because the people who are suffering are not the guilty few who may be here illegally and should not be here; they are the many people from minority ethnic backgrounds who just do not get a look-in because landlords play it safe. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to that when she introduced the debate. That is the problem. If we do not get rid of this pernicious bit of legislation, we will continue to see innocent people who, just because they have a different skin colour to my own, suffer because landlords will not let them properties just on the off-chance that there might be something not quite right in their paperwork. So I do not believe that the right-to-rent Act can be reformed, and I support this amendment.
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.