Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I rise to speak about an issue that goes to the very heart of the responsibilities we have as parliamentarians: namely, the duty to protect the most vulnerable people in our society from exploitation, neglect and harm.

In 2016, I had the honour of being drawn in the private Members’ Bills ballot. I sat on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for some 14 years prior to the last general election, and at the time we were conducting an inquiry into homelessness in England. I was shocked by the treatment that single homeless people received from local authorities and the public sector in general, so I had the privilege of sponsoring the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017—it took 18 months to be enacted—to transform how we prevent and respond to homelessness in this country. It was built on the very simple but powerful principle that early intervention, dignity and support can change lives. To date, my Act has prevented 1.6 million people from becoming homeless.

In 2022, the Committee undertook an inquiry, at the behest of several Birmingham MPs, into what can only be described as the wild west situation in supported housing in Birmingham. When we went there, we were shocked: we saw whole streets where rogue landlords had bought up three-bedroom houses, extended them to the side, to the rear and upwards, and converted them into eight single-room properties, with a small shared kitchen and bathroom.

More shocking than that was the fact that these landlords were not providing any support whatsoever to the vulnerable people living in their properties. These houses could have housed someone who had been a drug addict next door to a drug pusher, and a lady fleeing domestic violence next door to someone convicted of domestic violence. There was no regulation at all. To be fair to it, Birmingham city council had introduced a voluntary scheme, but unfortunately the rogue landlords were the ones who would not register. Before I go on, it is very important that I pay tribute to the wonderful charities up and down the country that provide not only a home, but support for vulnerable people.

Having been drawn in the private Members’ Bills ballot in 2022, I took the step of introducing what is now the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. This House and the other place took vital steps when they supported the Act. I worked with charities such as Crisis, and the Act was born out of necessity, with mounting evidence in too many cases that supported housing was failing the very people it was meant to help and that rogue landlords were getting away without proper regulation.

I think it is fair to say that I have been patient, given that the Act was passed in 2023 and, in 2026, it still has not been brought into operation. I know that the Government have consulted on it, and I welcome the fact that they continue to commit to implementing it, as they set out in their recent response to the consultation, but the time for consultation and delay must now be over. We have to get on with this, because every single day, vulnerable people are being exploited by rogue landlords. The need for action is urgent and immediate, because while we continue to talk about the issue, rogue landlords continue to operate. While we delay, vulnerable people continue to suffer and public money continues to flow into the hands of those who exploit those in need, rather than support them.

Supported housing should be one of the great strengths of our social system. It provides accommodation alongside care, support and supervision for people who are literally rebuilding their lives. Let us not forget that these people may have experienced homelessness, may have fled domestic abuse, or may be living with complex needs. The good charities assess those people’s needs just after providing a roof over their heads and supply a network of support; the rogue landlords pop along once a week and say, “Everyone all right? Yes? See you next week.” That is the extent of the support that these people receive.

As Crisis has set out, when it is delivered well, supported housing can provide high-quality transitional homes that help people to move on from homelessness and rebuild their independence. Emmaus UK’s recent “Rebuilding Lives” report reinforces this, showing how good supported housing not only offers shelter, but provides purpose and opportunities for training and work, which are key ingredients in helping people to regain stability and confidence.

When it works well, supported housing is transformative. It provides a pathway to independence and access to employment, it helps people to rebuild relationships and move on to settled homes, and it saves the public purse billions by reducing demand on health, criminal justice and emergency services. However, when it fails and rogue landlords take control, we have seen individuals punished for daring to get a job, because if they do so, they lose their housing benefit and the landlord cannot charge the earth in rent. Those rogue landlords refuse to provide even basic support and, as I have said, they sometimes house people literally next door to the very people they are fleeing.

Over recent years, we have seen the rise of rogue operators in the exempt accommodation sector. Crisis has documented how those providers exploit gaps in regulation, particularly in non-commissioned accommodation, where oversight is at its weakest. They have entered the market not to deliver support, but to maximise profit. That is because exempt accommodation allows providers to charge higher rents through housing benefit, recognising that supporting vulnerable people comes with additional costs. The fundamental flaw, as Crisis has highlighted, is that there has been no consistent, enforceable mechanism to ensure that the support justifying those higher rents is delivered, and there is no single regulator responsible for overseeing that support. The result is that in some cases, we are rewarding exploitation.

We have heard deeply troubling accounts from residents. Crisis has reported people being forced to share basic facilities with literally dozens of others, living in properties that are plagued by damp, mould and vermin, and experiencing intimidation and abuse—I have spoken to tenants who were abused and forced to move from one property to another. Some have even been forced back into homelessness to escape these conditions. Others have been charged additional fees for support that does not exist—charges that eat into their already limited incomes and push them further into poverty. Heaven help those vulnerable people if they dare to get a job, because the reduction in housing support means that, in most cases, the rogue landlord kicks them out. These findings are echoed in wider evidence from the sector, including the collapse of providers such as Prospect Housing, where residents were charged for inadequate or absent support.

To be absolutely clear, this is not an isolated problem. While I remember visiting cities such as Birmingham where the issues with supported housing have been most prominent, Crisis and other organisations have identified similar patterns across London, the midlands, the south-east and beyond. Rogue providers are expanding, exploiting inconsistencies in oversight between local authorities and adapting their business models to stay one step ahead of enforcement.

Local authorities are responsible for assessing eligibility for housing benefit and verifying that support is being provided, but as Crisis has highlighted, they face significant barriers of limited resources, inconsistent powers and legal constraints. There is also evidence that some councils struggle to proactively verify whether meaningful support is being delivered at all. Other regulators exist, but none has comprehensive responsibility for the support element of exempt accommodation. Guidance such as the national statement of expectations sets out a vision, but it is not legally enforceable. Voluntary standards exist in some areas, but compliance is optional. In short, the system has allowed far too many providers to slip through the cracks.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, and I want to reiterate his point. I have an extraordinary situation in Worcestershire, where many of my housing officers are not in the borough or even in the region that they serve. I find it extraordinary that I get regular interventions from the police telling me where supported housing has cropped up in my own patch, and yet my housing teams do not even know that it exists in the local authority area. Is it any surprise that the people there are often living in squalor—to the extent that some of my most vulnerable residents have chosen to live in tents in parks, rather than be in that supported accommodation?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. Clearly, if people are living in tents or are homeless on the streets, they are not getting the support they need to rebuild their lives, which is the key.

I introduced the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 to provide the framework we need to bring order, accountability and integrity to the sector. The Act enables the introduction of national supported housing standards—clear benchmarks for what good provision looks like, covering both accommodation and support. It establishes a licensing regime, empowering local authorities to approve, monitor and, where necessary, shut down providers that fail to meet the standards. The Act requires councils to develop local strategies, ensuring that supported housing provision is aligned with genuine local need, rather than driven by profit. That issue has been highlighted by Crisis and Emmaus UK research. Crucially, the Act allows for the linking of enhanced housing benefit to compliance, ensuring that public money supports only those providers that meet the required standards. The reality is that the system is costing the taxpayer a fortune, and it is going to rogue landlords.

The Government’s recent response to the consultation provides much-needed further detail on how the measures will be implemented, and I welcome the commitment to a national licensing system, the introduction of national supported housing standards and the application of a fit and proper person test for those managing schemes. I hope that we can ensure that some of the weasel ways that some rogue landlords use to get around things can be corrected. These are supposed to be not-for-profit organisations, but often a person will buy a property and rent it to a registered charity, which then pays rent to the landlord. Although the charity is not making a profit, the owner of the property is making a fortune. I hope we can correct that particular area.

I also welcome the decision, strongly supported by Crisis, to make eligibility for enhanced housing benefit contingent on a scheme holding a licence. That gives the system real teeth, removing the financial incentive that has driven rogue providers into the market, but I must express my concern about the timeline. The Government have indicated that implementation will begin in April 2027, four years after my Act received Royal Assent. I welcome the commitment, but we have pointed out that there must be no further delay, given the scale of harm that has already been caused since the Act was passed. During that time, the harms we sought to address have escalated. We must continue to ensure that these people do not continue their profit making. Every month of delay allows rogue landlords to operate unchecked. Every delay means more vulnerable people placed in unsafe conditions. Every delay represents a failure to deliver on the promise we made on a cross-party basis in this House. We must ask ourselves: how many more people will suffer before these powers are brought into force?

We must also recognise that regulation alone is not enough. The problem in this sector has been exacerbated by years of under-investment in support services. Crisis has made it clear that the growth of poor-quality, non-commissioned provision is closely linked to the decline in funding for support and the absence of a dedicated national funding stream. Housing benefit can cover higher rents, but it cannot fund support services. That creates a perverse incentive, in that providers must house people with support needs to qualify for higher payments, but there is no dedicated funding to meet those needs. Some providers go to great lengths to bridge this gap, relying on charitable funding or volunteers. That has been highlighted by Emmaus, and its model demonstrates the value of meaningful activity, work and community. Others, however, pass the costs on to the residents, charging additional fees that push people further into poverty. If we are serious about making this system work, we must address that imbalance.

The Treasury’s ongoing review of homelessness spending presents an opportunity to align funding with the new regulatory framework. As Crisis has argued, this must include a reset and an increase in funding for support services, including approaches such as Housing First and floating support. I urge the Government—they have not only a majority on their side, but support across the House on this issue—to really get on and do it.

We must ensure that local authorities have the resources they need to implement licensing and enforcement, the new burdens placed on councils must be fully funded if the system is to succeed, and we must ensure that, as we tackle rogue provision, we do not inadvertently increase homelessness. The Government’s commitment to produce guidance on rehousing residents affected by scheme closures is welcome, but I would caution that guidance alone is not enough. Local authorities must be supported financially and strategically to prevent homelessness and to take a proactive, co-ordinated approach.

We must also listen to those with lived experience. Evidence from residents, including the testimonies gathered by Emmaus, consistently shows that good supported housing is about more than accommodation. It is about meaningful support, opportunities for training, work and a sense of community and belonging. It is about rebuilding lives. We must ensure that these voices are at the heart of the new system shaping national standards, informing local strategies and holding providers to account. Ultimately, that is what this Act is about: it is about people—people who have already faced significant hardship and who deserve better from us.

The Act represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset the system, drive out rogue landlords, raise standards and ensure that supported housing truly supports those in need. We should just look at the success of my first Act—the Homelessness Reduction Act—which, I say again, has prevented 1.6 million people from being made homeless. That is why we must implement the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act, and we must do so with urgency.

In closing, I ask the Government simply to bring forward the regulations and the guidance, ensure that the April 2027 timetable is met without further delay, provide the resources needed for effective implementation, and ensure that no further delays stand in the way of protecting vulnerable people. Let us honour the intent of this House, let us deliver on the promise we made in 2023, and let us never again allow vulnerable people to be treated as commodities in a broken system. The time for action is now. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The trigger points she mentions, which can inadvertently exacerbate homelessness, are exactly the point of the duty to collaborate that we have brought forward in the homelessness strategy. We will be working on the exact point she mentions.

It is important to get the detail right. There is, rightly, broad support for improving standards in supported housing. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the consultation response that the Government published this month. We need to ensure that the framework we put in place is workable, proportionate and fair. Regulation will target poor practice, without creating unnecessary burdens for the many responsible providers who are delivering good-quality support every day. Across the country, there are providers doing excellent work. Housing associations, charities, local organisations and others are operating high-quality supported housing for those who need it most. That is why we will drive out the very poor practice, while supporting and protecting good providers.

The Government are committed not just to the aims of the Act, but to implementing it in a way that works on the ground. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Treasury’s value for money review. That is a very important element of this work. We are wasting taxpayers’ money for very poor outcomes. None of us can tolerate that, so Ministers are working together on that value for money review.

We have established the supported housing advisory panel to bring together expertise from across the sector and inform how the Act is implemented. Just this morning I met the chair, Sir David Pearson. I am confident that under his leadership the panel will provide insight and challenge as a critical friend, as we reform supported housing. I have also asked him to meet parliamentarians to brief them directly.

We have also published guidance to support local authorities in developing their supported housing strategies, which will help them identify and respond to need in their area. Alongside that, we have provided funding to local authorities to support the development of those strategies. That work is now under way in many areas.

This is not the end of that support. Further funding will follow to help authorities move to the next stage, including the set-up of licensing schemes. These are important steps. I have heard very clearly what the hon. Gentleman said on the length of time between the legislation being enacted and its provisions being felt on the ground. I have a lot of sympathy with his point. I am trying to help, and I know that if I do not, and if there is a delay, I will be asked many times about it at this Dispatch Box, so it is in all our interests to get on with it.

The effectiveness of this Act will depend on the regulations, the support standards and the way the powers are used. That means continuing to work carefully through the detail, listening to residents, providers and local authorities, and ensuring that the final framework delivers the improvements that residents badly need. As I have said, we are also making sure that, in raising standards, we preserve the good that already exists and, in fact, shine a light on it.

We do not want to undermine the providers that are already doing the right thing with supported housing; we want to strengthen the system so that people can continue to work with confidence, while poor providers and those who are bringing about these terrible circumstances are no longer able to exploit the system. I think that is the right approach. It is the way to protect residents, improve quality and maintain a supported housing sector that meets the needs of the people who need it most. As part of that approach, we will soon consult on the actual draft regulations.

We are committed to the purpose of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act and recognise its importance and how impactful it will be when its provisions are finally in full force. I thank hon. Members again for their contributions.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Minister for the response she has given thus far. I am not going to get into the politics of this, but local government reorganisation is going on, so could she say a little about what will happen to ensure that local government sets up in the right sort of way with the licensing scheme?

[Alison McGovern]

There is a response to that in the consultation response that we published recently. I am very conscious of all the potential effects of local government reorganisation. I think the creation of unitary councils is the right thing to do, because the splitting of functions can make tackling homelessness and bringing the Act into force harder than it needs to be. However, I am conscious that this will be a period of transition and that the areas undergoing reorganisation need particular attention in relation to this matter, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that—we have it on our agenda.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for all the work he has done to keep attention focused on this issue. It has been very good to work with him so far on it, and I look forward to working with him even more in the near future. We need to make progress on this, and I am determined that we will do so.

Question put and agreed to.