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.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow an excellent opening speech from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). I congratulate him on the way he has introduced this debate. I declare my interests as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the Holocaust memorial and education centre, co-chairman of the APPG on Israel and sponsor of this year’s Holocaust memorial reception in Portcullis House, on behalf of the Holocaust Educational Trust.

We gather today to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, which commemorates the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau on 27 January 1945. That moment exposed to the world the full horror of the Nazi regime’s systematic murder of 6 million Jewish men, women and children—for the benefit of the BBC, I say Jewish men, women and children. However, Holocaust Memorial Day is also a moment to remember the millions of others who were persecuted and murdered by the Nazis, such as the Roma, disabled people, political dissidents and others. We remember not only to honour the victims, but to understand how such an atrocity became possible and how we must never allow it to happen again.

The Holocaust did not begin with the gas chambers and the death camps, and too often we forget the context. In the decades before, hatred was allowed to grow in Germany; prejudice became normalised; and language, institutions and social norms were slowly corroded. In the great war, Germany was defeated, and afterwards it was economically shattered. The treaty of Versailles imposed territorial losses, military restrictions and severe reparations, the burden of which fell heavily on ordinary people in Germany. The Weimar republic, although democratic in structure, was fragile, and economic catastrophe soon followed. In fact, hyperinflation in the early 1920s left Germans burning paper money to keep warm, because the currency’s value had fallen away. Widespread poverty took hold, and in times of despair, many people searched for simple explanations—and for scapegoats.

It was in that climate that the Nazi party rose to prominence. Hitler and his supporters offered simplistic answers to complex problems. They promised national revival, strength and unity, while identifying enemies within. Jews were portrayed not as fellow citizens, but as outsiders. They were dehumanised and blamed for Germany’s defeat, its economic hardships and the perceived decline of society. Hatred was not accidental; it was systematic, deliberate and relentlessly reinforced. When the Nazis came to power in 1933, antisemitism became state policy. Just imagine that: it was state policy to outlaw a particular religion. Persecution began not with mass violence, but with exclusion. Jewish civil servants were dismissed, Jewish businesses were boycotted and Jewish professionals were barred from practising law and medicine, and from teaching. Those measures were designed to isolate, humiliate and impoverish an entire community.

It is important to stress that while most people did not actively participate in persecution, most chose to look away while it happened. Silence, passivity and indifference allowed injustice to become embedded and, ultimately, unstoppable. Persecution soon escalated. The Nuremberg laws of 1935 stripped Jews of citizenship and basic rights, reducing them from equal members of society to subjects of the state. Violence became overt. In November 1938, Kristallnacht marked a decisive turning point. Synagogues were destroyed, Jewish homes and businesses were attacked, and thousands were arrested by the state—not by mobs acting alone, but by authority itself.

With the outbreak of the second world war, persecution turned into annihilation. Jews were forced into ghettos, and we will no doubt hear about harrowing testimonies of overcrowding, hunger, disease and despair. From 1941 onwards, death camps such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka and Sobibor were constructed for one purpose alone—mass murder. Trains arrived from across Europe, and people were selected, exploited and killed on an industrial scale. There were some who resisted, often at immense personal risk, and they remind us that choices are always possible, but they were the exception, not the norm.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Again, my hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does he share my horror and disgust that yesterday, a member of the public thought it was entirely appropriate to dress as a prisoner of one of the concentration camps? Surely this is the hatred he is describing.

[Bob Blackman]

Indeed, I condemn that action, and all actions that seek in some way, shape or form to glorify or justify the Holocaust.

The lesson matters profoundly today. Holocaust Memorial Day plays a vital part in educating the public on the dangers of prejudice, discrimination and hatred—dangers that, if left unchecked, can escalate once again into violence and even genocide. It honours survivors and preserves their testimony, particularly now that the number of first-hand witnesses is sadly diminishing—a point to which the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket alluded. The theme for this year, “Bridging Generations”, is therefore a powerful call to action. The responsibility for remembrance does not end with the survivors. It must be passed on to their children, grandchildren and all of us, so that memory becomes responsibility. That matters, because antisemitism in the UK remains at alarmingly high levels. Following the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, antisemitic incidents surged dramatically. According to the Community Security Trust, 1,521 antisemitic incidents were recorded in the first half of 2025 alone—the second highest total ever recorded for that period. Although that is lower than the number in the record year of 2024, that still represents a sustained and deeply troubling level of hostility that is far above the pre-October 7 averages.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not always agree with him, but I very much agree with the case that he is making today and what he is saying. He mentioned the surge in antisemitism in the UK. Would he agree that Ofcom needs to crack down on online hatred—particularly antisemitism, but also Islamophobic tweets? The Jewish community and those of many other faiths are subject to a terrifying amount of online hatred.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for that intervention. The sad reality is that following my question to the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, my social media accounts were loaded with antisemitic tropes. It is a disgrace, and Ofcom has to take action. It is our duty to ensure that hate speech is never allowed to continue. I believe in free speech, but I do not believe in preaching hatred to one another, regardless of religion, and action has to be taken on that.

Greater London and Greater Manchester remain hotspots of antisemitism; there was an attack on the synagogue in Manchester during Yom Kippur. Online antisemitism, to which the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) just referred, now accounts for well more than a third of all incidents. Holocaust-related abuse appears with disturbing frequency, and there has been a sharp rise in the glorification of the Holocaust. Behind these statistics lies a chilling reality: many Jewish people in Britain feel unsafe, unwelcome or forced to hide their identity in public. Surveys suggest that around half have considered leaving the UK due to antisemitism. That should trouble every one of us.

We must be honest about the ways in which contemporary antisemitism often disguises itself. Increasingly, anti-Israel activism functions as a Trojan horse for antisemitism, allowing ancient prejudice to re-enter public discourse under the cover of political critique. Legitimate criticism of any Government is entirely valid, but when Israel becomes uniquely demonised, Zionism is used as a slur and Jewish institutions and individuals are targeted, regardless of their views, we are no longer in the realm of political debate. CST data shows that a significant proportion of antisemitic incidents now blend anti-Zionist language with classic antisemitic tropes: claims of secret control, collective guilt or global conspiracy. On campuses and online platforms, and in public demonstrations such as yesterday’s, Jewish students and citizens are increasingly made to feel responsible simply for who they are. That not only undermines free speech; it poisons it.

We must confront the disturbing rise of Holocaust inversion: the grotesque distortion that portrays Jews or Israel as the new Nazis. That is not merely offensive rhetoric; it threatens and trivialises the Shoah, inverts reality, and inflicts profound harm on survivors and their families. Equating the Star of David with the swastika or accusing the Jewish state of genocide is not historical analysis; it is antisemitism. We must be clear and unequivocal in condemning it.

On Holocaust Memorial Day, we should acknowledge the historical link between the Holocaust and the modern state of Israel. Zionism long predates the second world war, but the genocide of European Jewry underscored with devastating clarity the need for a Jewish homeland—a place of refuge and self-determination. Many Holocaust survivors helped build that nation, carrying the scars of the camps with them. Attempts to de-legitimise Israel ignore that history and risk erasing the fundamental lesson of “never again”.

Finally, I want to turn to the future. Last week, the Holocaust Memorial Act 2026 received Royal Assent, paving the way for the national Holocaust memorial and learning centre to be built in Victoria Tower Gardens, beside this very Parliament. Proposed by a cross-party commission more than a decade ago, the memorial will honour the victims and educate generations to come. The proposal was started by Lord Cameron and was supported cross-party. As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, we must get that memorial built before the last of the survivors is no longer with us. Its location matters. It will stand as a permanent reminder, at the heart of our democracy, of where hatred can lead when left unchallenged.

As we remember the victims today, we also reaffirm our responsibility to challenge antisemitism wherever it appears, defend democratic values and human dignity, and ensure that history is neither forgotten nor distorted. When we see demonstrations and attempts to blockade Jewish businesses, restaurants and synagogues, we must call it out for what it is: antisemitism, pure and simple. Remembrance is not only about the past; it is a warning for the present, and a duty that we owe to future generations. I and, I believe, the whole House will recommit to carrying out that duty.

National Plan to End Homelessness

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

Housing associations will have heard the comments that my hon. Friend has made. I am sure that they all aspire to treat their residents with the utmost respect and care, but they will have heard what he has said and will want to ensure that they fulfil that ambition.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I remind the House that under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which was implemented in 2018, 1.7 million people in this country have been prevented from becoming homeless in the first place. There is also a duty to refer on the health service, the Prison Service, the armed forces and every statutory body. If they come across people who are threatened with being homeless, they must refer them on.

The Minister talks about a duty to co-operate and assist, but we must ensure that if she needs to revisit that duty to refer and put the onus on co-operation between the two parties, that is fine. Equally, she could immediately implement the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 that I piloted through this place so that the supported housing provided is taken away from rogue landlords who exploit vulnerable people. I look forward to that being implemented.

In the limited time that I have had to read the document, there does not seem to be a mention of the roll-out of Housing First. We know that works. It puts a roof over people’s heads and then we can build the network of support they need to get them back on their feet. Finally, if she needs legislative change, my Homelessness Prevention Bill received an unopposed Second Reading in this place but awaits Government approval, a Committee stage and potential funding. If she needs a legislative process, it is there, ready to go.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work over so many years on this issue. He mentions a number of legislative vehicles, some of which have already made a change and some of which could. I will work with him to do what we need.

On the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act, he will have noticed in the Budget that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is leading some work on value for money in that sector. I will write to him with details on that. On the duty to collaborate, I am sorry to say that we are all aware, as constituency MPs, of terrible cases where homelessness could clearly have been prevented at a number of turns and was not. Two things are necessary: we need to introduce a duty to collaborate and work across the House to do that, but we also need transparency about results. We know how many people present themselves to councils with a risk of homelessness. This strategy sets out an objective to increase the number of cases when homelessness is prevented. Let us have transparency, let us have clarity about where it is happening and not, and let us make sure that councils have the tools in the box to do the job.

Homelessness: Funding

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the adequacy of funding to support homeless people.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This debate brings together three members of the Backbench Business Committee, which agreed to schedule the debate in the first place.

The reality is that homelessness is rising. In its 2025 homelessness monitor for England, Crisis found that it is at record levels; in 2024, 300,000 individuals and families experienced the worst forms of homelessness, an increase of 22% on 2022. What is worse, Homeless Link estimates that 8,732 people were rough sleeping in England throughout June 2025, a 5% increase on the same time in 2024. Data gathered by the Combined Homelessness and Information Network shows that in London, 759 people were classed as living on the streets, 11% more than the same time last year.

London is suffering the most severe homelessness pressures in the country. London Councils reports that the capital accounts for more than half—56%—of all homeless households living in temporary accommodation in England. It also estimates that 200,000 Londoners are living in temporary accommodation arranged by their local borough. That is equivalent to one in 50 Londoners overall, and the figure includes over 97,000 children, meaning that on average at least one child in every London classroom is homeless.

As we approach Christmas, many of us will be doing our shopping, making arrangements to see family and loved ones, and probably turning the heat up a bit, but think of those sleeping rough at this time of year: cold, wet, hungry, on a park bench or in a shop doorway, in sub-zero temperatures overnight. Although there are no official statistics on how many people sleeping rough sadly die in their sleep, one only has to imagine the harsh and life-threatening conditions that people have to endure.

It is clear that local authorities are struggling to cope with the demands of homelessness. Crisis reports that 79% of local authorities struggle to meet their main rehousing duty either all the time or most of the time. That is backed up by research from Homeless Link, which shows that for many the picture has worsened in the last year, with services reducing capacity or closing down at the time they are needed most. The biggest short-term drivers of homelessness, outside the chronic undersupply of social rented housing, are the continued freeze on local housing allowance and homelessness from public institutions. Crisis found that the causes of homelessness with the biggest increases last year were people being asked to leave Home Office accommodation and people being discharged from hospitals or prisons, which saw increases of 37% and 22% respectively.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for bringing this subject forward for debate. Across the UK, a disproportionate number of homeless people are former military personnel. Does he agree that this Government need to get real about supporting those who serve this country in their hour of need? We cannot continue to abandon them.

[Bob Blackman]

Under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, local authorities have a duty to assist veterans who have put their lives on the line for this country. They should be given full support.

The wider context of homelessness is important in discussions of funding. It demonstrates that if we simply allocate the funding to prevent homelessness to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and local authorities, we ignore the major drivers of homelessness and will not see the reduction that we all want to see. I have raised this issue many times, and it has become increasingly clear that we need the Government to take action. They need to set out in the forthcoming homelessness strategy a clear direction for how they will tackle the drivers of homelessness, with an approach that prioritises prevention rather than cure, and securing access to stable housing with support as quickly as possible. They also need to make serious reform to funding models to ensure that they are adequate and can deliver outcomes on preventing and ending homelessness.

The cross-Government strategy must address the drivers of homelessness and be clear on the outcomes that we are trying to achieve. We await its publication, which will be a key opportunity to set a clear strategic direction from the heart of Government on the outcomes that we want to see, and to design funding to maximise the chances of achieving them.

Changes to homelessness funding are not isolated from wider Government policy. The numbers show that welfare decisions, Home Office policy changes, and the ongoing failure to end street discharge from hospitals and prisons are pushing more and more people into homelessness. The Government must consider any changes to homelessness funding alongside wider policy and the cross-Government strategy for homelessness and rough sleeping—in particular, how welfare policy decisions increase demand on local government services.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

In my constituency, Caritas provides homeless support through its day centre and supported accommodation facility. It supported over 1,000 people last year, and demand for the service has risen by 19%. Does the hon. Member agree that long-term sustainable funding would help organisations such as Caritas provide their vital services and support those who most need it?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which leads me on to the aspects of what local authorities have to do. They are the front door; they are dealing with this crisis 24/7, 365 days a year. The Government must provide them with more help with temporary accommodation costs. Last year alone, local authorities spent £2.8 billion on temporary accommodation, which often came from homelessness budgets. It is positive that TA funding is being moved into the revenue support grant, but the lack of Government subsidy for housing benefit and temporary accommodation costs means that the core issue remains unaddressed.

The welfare system and other public services must do more to prevent homelessness. The lack of social homes and the continued freeze of local housing allowance leaves people with nowhere to go. Fewer than three in every 100 homes for rent are affordable for someone who needs local housing allowance. Furthermore, according to the Crisis monitor, homelessness on discharge from public institutions—hospitals and prisons—has risen by 22%. I have raised that repeatedly in this place, but I have seen no action on it. If it does not change, councils will continue to face impossible levels of need with inadequate levels of funding.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Liverpool is paying £25 million in the current financial year to house 1,700 people in temporary accommodation, 450 of whom are children. Does he agree that, although it is welcome that temporary accommodation funding is being moved into the revenue support grant, local authorities urgently need more support, given that they spend £2.8 billion on temporary accommodation, and we need to look at raising the local housing grant?

[Bob Blackman]

I am grateful to a Liverpool MP for calling me an hon. Friend; as I spent four years at the University of Liverpool, I have a shared interest in the great city of Liverpool. I agree that we have to do something about the local housing allowance, and I believe that that was a missed opportunity in the recent Budget.

Supported accommodation funding must be addressed. The removal of ringfencing has led to many supported housing services relying on exempt housing benefit to cover the cost of provision, spurring a proliferation of rogue providers. That must be addressed, and the Government must urgently bring forward the powers introduced by my Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which we are still waiting for despite deadlines having passed and the Government now technically being in breach of the law.

Fundamentally, the homelessness strategy must be backed by adequate funding models to enable an evidence-based approach to tackling homelessness. The Government have made welcome funding announcements regarding housing and homelessness—funding for rough sleeping and temporary accommodation hit £1 billion in 2025-26; 60% of the £39 billion of social and affordable housing funding has been committed to social homes; and they have committed to developing a £2.4 billion homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant for 2026-27 to 2028-29—but the fact that homelessness continues to rise is clear evidence that we need to review the adequacy of funding and the overall approach to homelessness at a systems level, via the cross-Government strategy. That includes ensuring that the new homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant enables local authorities to provide effective homelessness support in line with evidence-based best practice.

To do that, the MHCLG must ringfence the new grant, so that local authorities do not use it for purposes that do not meet the requirements in the guidance. It must also develop outcome-based scrutiny mechanisms, such as reductions in presentations to housing options through preventive work; higher assessment rates relative to presentations; the introduction of face-to-face assessments; and housing-led approaches to addressing homelessness, so that people’s ability to access a secure home, with support if needed, is prioritised over temporary solutions.

In their response to the fair funding review, the Government propose consolidating all homelessness and rough sleeping revenue grants, except for temporary accommodation grant funding, which is to be moved into the revenue support grant. That will be £2.4 billion over the next three years, matching the call from the sector and the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, of which I am co-chairman, for consolidated multi-annual funding.

Throughout that process, we should ask whether the Government are ensuring efficacy. To ensure that funding tackles homelessness, the Government must work with councils, strategic authorities and the sector to develop appropriate scrutiny and accountability mechanisms, requiring local authorities to demonstrate how the new grant funding has been used to achieve targets. In doing that, the Government must link funding to outcome-based targets, with clear lines of accountability and performance monitoring. Examples of outcome-based targets are reductions in presentations to housing options, through proactive preventive work; increases in face-to-face assessment; and the development of local housing-led approaches to addressing homelessness, which we know are the most effective ways of sustainably ending homelessness.

Although the Government did not propose including domestic abuse funding in the new consolidated grant, I am a firm believer that that might encourage local authorities to consider the intersections between homelessness and domestic abuse. In the 2023-24 financial year, domestic abuse accounted for 12,130, or 25%, of the households with children owed a relief duty.

Homelessness funding reached £1 billion for 2025-26, with two main funding pots and several smaller ones. Should that level of funding have continued over the 2026-27 and 2028-29 periods, councils would have received £3 billion. That does not match the provisional funding allocation for the next two to three years, so it is fair to ask whether that is a cut just when services need more support. Remember that the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant does not include funding for temporary accommodation. Of the £633 million allocated to the homelessness prevention grant this year, 51%—£322 million—will be allocated to temporary accommodation, so this could leave councils with just £310 million to spend on homelessness support.

At the heart of the matter are the pressures faced by temporary accommodation. Government data shows that in 2023-24, local authorities in England spent nearly £2.3 billion on temporary accommodation, including very expensive nightly paid accommodation and more specialist emergency housing such as hostels and refuges. Spending on nightly paid accommodation has increased from 6% to 30% of the total temporary accommodation bill in the past 10 years.

For the next three years, temporary accommodation funding will be separated from wider homelessness funding and included in councils’ revenue support grant. For that three-year period, councils will receive temporary accommodation funding worth £969 million, which is around £323 million a year. That was previously part of the homelessness prevention grant, for which councils had roughly the same amount of funding. I welcome the decision to separate the funding, but we should not allow local authorities to choose between paying for expensive and often unsatisfactory temporary accommodation and homelessness support.

There is concern that the impact of temporary accommodation funding reforms will be limited because of the shortfall in financial support, paid at 90% of 2011 local housing allowance rates. It is unlikely that the reforms proposed by the Government will mitigate that subsidy gap, particularly given that the proposed level of funding is similar to that in the current year.

Let me take us back to 2003, when English local authorities were allocated ringfenced Supporting People funding to commission housing support. In 2009, that ringfence was removed, enabling local authorities to decide how the funding was used in their areas. That has led to significant variation in how services are commissioned across local authorities, with some supported housing services directly funded and commissioned by local authorities and other, non-commissioned services receiving no direct grant funding from the Government. The impact is that many providers are ending up using the higher rates of exempt housing benefit to offset higher housing management costs and pay for support. Although housing benefit should not be used to pay for that support, many providers report having to do so.

Many of the problems that we have seen in the exempt sector are driven in part by reductions in funding for support and increased dependence on exempt housing benefit. Unscrupulous landlords have used the higher rates of exempt housing benefit to profit from the provision of supported accommodation, while providing poor and sometimes unsafe services. That was the core reason for my Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, whose implementation we still await. When the Minister responds to the debate, she can give us the good news that we will implement that without any further delay.

A lot of good work has been done. People are more aware of the struggles of homelessness and the enormous amount of charitable work that continues to support, lobby and raise awareness for us all. The three-year grant is welcome, but homelessness continues to rise. It is clear that we need to review both the adequacy of funding and the overall approach, via the cross-Government strategy, so the next question for the Minister is when we will see that strategy actually being delivered.

Basic principles are still missing. Indexing local housing allowance to cover just the cheapest 30% of local homes is one of the most impactful measures that the Government could introduce. The cross-Government strategy must address the drivers of homelessness and be clear about the outcomes that we are trying to achieve. We cannot forget that local authorities are the front door—they are dealing with the crisis literally every single day, and 24 hours a day at that—and we are still waiting for the protections and regulations enshrined by my Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act to be enacted.

Let us not forget these points. Homelessness is rising. More than half of homelessness cases are in London. The cost of temporary accommodation is rising. Council budgets are shrinking. That is all while thousands are sleeping rough, on a sofa or on the street. The weather will be changing and temperatures will be dropping in the coming weeks. We stand here and call for change, and change must come.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), and the 13 Back-Bench Members who contributed to the debate. It is clear that we have a serious challenge on our hands. In relation to the long-promised strategy, it is only a few days till we break up for the Christmas recess and the strategy is supposed to be released before Christmas, so we look forward to it coming very soon. During the debate, we have exposed the fact that it is not just funding that is required. The reality is that we need a wholesale strategy to prevent homelessness in the first place and then to make sure that local authorities and other bodies are carrying out their duties properly.

The Minister rightly referred to my Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act. The reality is that the regulations were prepared before the general election, consulted on when new Ministers took office and should now be enforced. Local authorities are going off and doing their own thing when we should have a clear strategy for how we do this. There are measures in the Act that the Minister could introduce today, without having to rely on the consultation that is taking place. I urge her to take that opportunity so that we can make sure that we prevent homelessness in the first place.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the adequacy of funding to support homeless people.

House Building: London

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I salute my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for initiating the debate.

The debate is timely given the decision last week, by the Government and City Hall, to lower targets for affordable housing in developments, in exchange for the granting of supposedly faster planning permission. That is a real concern. The briefing that we have received from Crisis demonstrates that more than 13,231 people were rough sleeping in London during the last year—a record high and a 10% increase on the previous year. Some 70,000 households, including 90,000 children, are in temporary accommodation. Not only is that bad for the families, but it is costing Londoners and the taxpayer something like £5 million a day in London. In particular, money is being spent on bed and breakfast accommodation, which is not only unsuitable for families but expensive for London authorities to bear. There are 336,366 households on social housing waiting lists in London. The crunch is whether this decision is actually going to deliver any improvement in social housing.

Before anyone starts talking about the previous Government or the former Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, I remind hon. Members, particularly newly elected Labour Members, that I tried to carry through a Bill on behalf of Boris Johnson to increase house building in London. We were blocked by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who is no longer in his place, and the hon. Member for Islington—I am not sure which.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Me?

[Bob Blackman]

No, the other one: the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). That meant that whole sites in London were not developed to provide housing when they should have been.

Clearly we have a serious problem here. In my constituency, there is a planning application that has been outstanding, after having been reviewed at various times, for nearly 10 years. It would provide housing units that we desperately need, but the housing association refuses to develop it. It is now trying to sell the site again to further developers.

Our other problem in London is where developments have taken place. There have been developments such as Battersea power station, around Wembley stadium and other areas where housing has gone up, but that housing has not been sold to local people; it is been sold to developers or owners abroad, then rented out at exorbitant cost to local London people, who then have to apply for housing benefit and depend on welfare payments rather than having a home of their own. We have to conquer this.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman made a very good point about overseas sales, although I would contest his statement that people are having to receive housing benefit to live in many of those developments because, as he probably knows, they are advertised overseas by yield. We are seeing homes in London as financial investment vehicles for people who have no connection with this country. Many of those landlords have never even visited the property. What would his party’s policy be to tackle this issue?

[Bob Blackman]

I do not speak on behalf of my party; I speak on my own behalf. As the hon. Lady well knows, I have been promoting building 90,000 socially rented homes a year across the country, and for the past 30 years Governments of all persuasions have failed to build the homes that we need at the prices that people can afford.

The sad reality is that we have to look at how we are going to deal with this. We could deal with the Transport for London land. TfL owns huge amounts of unused land that could be developed for housing, and that could be done in co-operation with City Hall, but the sad fact is—[Interruption.] Government Members need to focus on this: not only was Sadiq Khan as mayor given the money that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned, but he returned it to the Treasury; he could not spend it because he could not get development under way.

We have to look at what we are going to do across the House to make sure that houses are being built in London. I hope that we are not going to reduce the safety requirements for these buildings. That would be a disaster—we know of the terrible tragedy that happened in Grenfell. We should not even contemplate moving away from what has been done to protect people. Lessening those protections would be a mistake in many ways.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. How are the Government going to ensure that the affordable homes that we need in London are provided when the restrictions have been removed and developers are therefore less likely to build affordable housing that we need? Before agreeing to this decision, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact it will have on those on the affordable housing waiting lists in London? That is a real crisis, and London councils right now are in desperate need of more finance to build more housing. There are possibilities to develop the brownfield sites that TfL and the Government own, but that is being restricted. There is a solution that we could advance. We hope the Government and the Minister, who I have a lot of respect for, can influence the Mayor of London to make that happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) on securing this important debate, and I thank other hon. Members who have spoken for their passionate and—with some notable exceptions—thoughtful contributions. It has been a good debate. I also welcome the shadow Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), to his place. It is a pleasure to debate opposite him, and I thank him for the kind words he said about me in particular.

It is not in dispute that house building in London is in crisis. The causes of that crisis are multifaceted. London has faced development challenges common to all parts England over recent years, including a significant increase in the price of building materials, a rise in financing costs, and planning capacity and capability pressures. However, it is important to recognise that the capital also faces a number of distinct challenges unique to its housing market that differ in important ways from the rest of the country.

Those challenges include the fact that London is overwhelmingly reliant on flatted developments that have become more challenging to deliver over recent years. It has depended over recent years on demand for international buyers and investors, whose appetite to purchase private market homes has diminished. It also has a higher proportion of landowners, and traders acting on their behalf, who are global investors allocating development funding based on competing returns globally and across asset classes. The combination of those and other factors has resulted in a perfect storm for house building in our capital. That perfect storm has real-world implications for Londoners in housing need.

As you will know, Mr Mundell, as part of our overhaul of the national planning policy framework in December last year, we addressed the fantastical housing target of over 100,000 given to London by the previous Government. That target was based on the punitive application of the now-abolished urban uplift, and it bore no relation whatsoever to addressed housing need in our capital. However, London is still falling far short of the more appropriate target of 87,992 homes per year, which results from the new standard method that we put in place.

We have heard the statistics cited by many hon. Members. Overall home starts in London in 2024-25 totalled just 3,990. In the first quarter of this year, more than a third of London boroughs recorded zero housing starts. I do not mean to single out the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—this applies across the board—but in the borough of Bexley, construction was started on just 160 homes, and completions numbered just 210, in the whole of 2024. Those numbers are far too low. In short, London housing delivery is on life support, as is broadly recognised across the Chamber.

In the first 15 months of this Government’s life, we took steps to support the mayor and the GLA in addressing the house building challenges facing the capital. We withdrew the previous Government’s direction of March 2024, which required the GLA to complete an unhelpful, partial review of the London plan, and we have provided the GLA with certainty on grant by making it clear that up to 30% of our new £39 billion social and affordable homes programme will be allocated to London.

However, although those and other vital interventions were beneficial, the Government concluded over the summer that we had no choice but to take further decisive action. That is why, on 23 October, via a written ministerial statement, as is often the case—it was not snuck out; it was published on the Government website for all to see—the Secretary of State and the Mayor of London announced new emergency measures designed to arrest and reverse the collapse in house building in London by lowering development costs and improving scheme viability. The time-limited emergency measures, which I should stress to hon. Members are subject to consultation, are as follows.

First, we will introduce mandatory partial relief from borough-level community infrastructure levy charges for qualifying brownfield residential schemes that start construction before the end of 2028. As hon. Members will be aware, CIL funds strategic infrastructure, such as schools and health facilities, but if no development is taking place, boroughs do not benefit from CIL payments. The more schemes we can get moving, the more CIL funds flow into borough coffers. The reliefs we have announced will cover 50% of the CIL charges for schemes with at least 20% affordable housing, with greater relief for higher proportions of affordable homes, to incentivise house builders to deliver more.

Secondly, we will remove elements of planning guidance that can constrain density. The mayor, supported by Government, will consult on revising guidance in respect of dual aspect requirements, the number of dwellings per core and cycle storage standards. Looking ahead, the next London plan will streamline requirements to reduce duplication and complexity, making it easier to build homes quickly, without compromising quality.

[Bob Blackman]

Do the new standards apply to new planning applications that are being considered or to ones, already in the pipeline, in which developers have proposed developments with less affordable housing?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said, there will be consultation on the specifics of many parts of this package, but I will address his particular point about the new time-limited planning route. This route, which will be open for two years, will allow schemes on private land in London to proceed without a viability assessment, provided that they deliver at least 20% affordable housing—importantly, with a minimum of 60% social rent. To incentivise schemes to come forward on this basis, grant funding will be made available for homes above the first 10%, which will remain nil grant.

Crucially, a gainshare mechanism on schemes or phases of schemes not commenced by 31 March 2030 will ensure that, if market conditions improve, communities benefit too. In our view, that is a pragmatic, temporary measure to unlock delivery now, while maintaining our commitment to affordable housing in the long term. It will sit alongside the GLA’s existing fast-track route, which retains its 35% affordable housing threshold.

Ending Homelessness

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered progress on ending homelessness.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, which I chair, for granting this debate—I am not surprised that it took that very sensible decision. I begin by welcoming the new Minister to her place and congratulating her on her appointment and the recent funding announcement to support local authorities in addressing homelessness. Her prompt action and proven commitment to tackling child poverty gives me, and I am sure the whole House, confidence that we can look forward to a constructive and purposeful debate today. I am grateful to the many Members who have attended.

The Minister needs no persuasion that homelessness is one of the great injustices in our society and an affront to human dignity that we have a moral duty to end. I think we share that belief across this House. We see every day the human cost of homelessness. We see it far too frequently in the constituent letters we receive, in the stories we hear at our surgeries, and even outside the parliamentary estate on the streets of Westminster as we walk to work each day. But behind every statistic and every person is a unique story. This morning at least 4,600 people woke up on our streets, uncertain where they would sleep tonight. More than 132,000 households live in temporary accommodation, facing constant instability, and more than 172,000 children went to school today knowing that when they return it will not be to a home, but to a mouldy bed and breakfast, a run-down hotel or a short-term let that they could be asked to leave at any moment. They are not just numbers on a page; they are lives in limbo.

Homelessness is a moral crisis, but also a practical one. Local authorities in London—I know colleagues will refer to their own areas—are now spending almost £5 million every single day on temporary accommodation that is often of such poor quality that it damages health and education and hinders opportunity. It is difficult to imagine another area of public spending where we would tolerate so much money being spent to achieve so little outcome. As winter approaches and the nights grow colder, the urgency deepens. This is the moment for decisive, co-ordinated action, so I ask the Minister when we can expect the Government to publish and deliver the promised cross-Government strategy for homelessness. Can she confirm that the interministerial group will continue to meet regularly under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State to drive that strategy forward? If she needs a vehicle to make that happen, my private Member’s Homelessness Prevention Bill, which received an unopposed Second Reading, could go into Committee with a money resolution and we could help get a legal position to support the work that she is going to do.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. Does he agree with me that, difficult as it might be, the key to the problem that he has correctly outlined is the availability of lower-cost, good quality social housing? We must aim to expand that as quickly and successfully as possible in the next few years.

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, the hon. Member anticipates something I will say later in my speech. I have long advocated that we need to build 90,000 affordable homes for social rent each year to meet the demand.

As co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to our new report, “Homes, Support, Prevention—Our Foundations For Ending Homelessness”. The report brings together evidence from across the country, from local and combined authorities, charities, service providers, academics and, crucially, people who have lived experience of homelessness themselves. The report distils a complex problem into three simple but essential pillars that any effective strategy must deliver: first, preventing homelessness wherever possible; secondly, rapidly rehousing people who still need help; and thirdly, improving support for those experiencing the most severe forms of homelessness.

The best way to end homelessness is to prevent it happening in the first place. Almost everyone with lived experience who contributed to our APPG’s work identified a point at which their homelessness could have been prevented. That is a missed opportunity where timely help could have made all the difference. Prevention should not be a political issue; it is simply common sense and morally right, socially responsible and economically wise. Research by Shelter found that one in 10 people in temporary accommodation had to give up work due to their housing situation. That statistic alone should galvanise us to act earlier, before people lose not only their homes but their jobs, stability and self-confidence in a downward spiral.

Through my private Members’ Bills, I have worked to put prevention at the heart of our response. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 focused on preventing people becoming homeless and presented the largest and most comprehensive changes to the rights of homeless people for more than 39 years. Fundamentally, its purpose is to ensure that everyone at risk of being homeless or who is currently homeless is legally entitled to meaningful help from their local authority, regardless of their current status.

Previously, local authorities had been entitled to assist only those who were deemed a priority and at crisis point. That excluded the majority of people, including almost all of those who were single. The Act also addressed the significant lack of meaningful advice and assistance, which more often than not in the majority of cases was not tailored to the individual’s needs and requirements.

The Act implemented a duty on specified public bodies to refer any person whom they believed was at risk of homelessness within the next 56 days to the relevant housing department. That helps to direct appropriate and efficient support and resources to those in need and prevent them from sleeping rough before it is too late. The 56 days marks a significant extension; previously only those at risk of homelessness in the first 28 days would potentially receive some help. The extension to 56 means that people have a longer opportunity to relieve their situation.

I am pleased to say that, in the first year of implementation, the Homelessness Reduction Act prevented 37,000 people from becoming homeless. It continues to be just as effective today, some six years later. In the first year alone, an additional 60,000 people who were previously ineligible for homeless support were assisted in getting off the streets and into appropriate accommodation. That is a rise of almost 50% on the previous year to the Act’s implementation. Today, I am proud to say that the Homelessness Reduction Act has prevented more than 1.7 million people from becoming homeless, with more than 777,000 now in stable and secure long-term housing.

I am pleased that the Act has helped thousands avoid the trauma of homelessness, but the truth is that we can and must go further. Across our APPG’s evidence sessions, we repeatedly heard of cases where other public services missed crucial opportunities to step in: hospitals discharging patients on to the street; jobcentres overlooking signs of distress; prisons releasing people with no plan for where they would go next. Those are not isolated incidents; they are systemic failures. Recent analysis from the Institute for Government found that discharges from public institutions now account for almost half the recent rise in homelessness applications. If we are serious about tackling homelessness we cannot leave the burden solely on housing departments. It must be a whole-system effort, covering health, justice, education, welfare and local government. We must all work together to stop people falling through the cracks.

Prevention is not only compassionate; it is cost-effective. When someone keeps their home, they recover faster after illness, they are half as likely to reoffend and they find it easier to get back into work. Will the Minister meet me and colleagues to discuss how she intends to embed prevention firmly at the centre of the Government’s homelessness strategy?

Even with the best prevention measures, there will always be times when homelessness cannot be avoided. When that happens, our goal must be to get people back into stable, affordable homes as quickly as possible. That requires a clear, long-term commitment to increasing the supply of social and affordable housing. I have long argued that if we are serious about ending homelessness we must build more homes that people can actually afford.

The Secretary of State’s recent commitment to delivering more social and affordable homes is welcome, but words must now turn into action, and that delivery must be targeted where the need is greatest. Too often, affordable homes are built in the wrong places or at rent levels that are out of reach for those most in need. I ask the Minister to confirm that she will work closely with the Housing Minister to ensure that the long-term plan for housing delivers social homes where they are most needed, and that people experiencing homelessness are given fair and equal access to them, because rapid rehousing works only when the homes are there for people to move into.

We must also ensure that temporary accommodation truly is temporary—a stepping-stone, not a dead end. I have met families who have spent years moving between short-term lets, B&Bs and converted offices, never knowing where they will be next. It is impossible to rebuild their lives under those conditions. A genuine rapid rehousing model backed by adequate social housing can break this cycle. It restores stability, improves health and education outcomes and reduces long-term costs. We owe it to those families, and to the taxpayers footing the bill, to make that a reality.

The third and final pillar of the APPG’s framework is support for those whose homelessness could not be prevented, and who need more than housing alone to rebuild their lives. Supported housing plays a crucial role in that effort. I introduced the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 after receiving extensive evidence of rogue landlords exploiting vulnerable people and the taxpayer. Rogue unscrupulous landlords were setting up supported housing schemes and claiming public money through housing benefit, while providing little or no care whatsoever. Devastatingly, those abuses were not just financial ones; they destroyed lives. Through the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee I saw how deeply that issue runs.

The challenge now is to strike the right balance: driving out the rogue providers while protecting the good ones, and ensuring that vulnerable residents are not made homeless again as a result of reform. That is why I agreed that the powers within the 2023 Act should be subject to consultation so that we can get this right; but we are two years on from Royal Assent and those powers have yet to see the light of day. I ask the Minister to provide an update on three points.

When will the Government publish detailed guidance and timescales for implementing that, including funding for councils, strategic needs assessments and licence fees? What steps are being taken to ensure that local authorities are not misusing their powers to close providers down through housing benefit reviews without proper care for the residents’ welfare? Will the Government confirm that domestic abuse refuges and dispersal providers will not be required to register every individual property separately? That is an administrative burden that would put vital services at risk.

Beyond regulation, however, lies a deeper issue: the collapse of support capacity. Across all our APPG evidence sessions we heard from charities, councils and service providers struggling to meet the growing complexity of people’s needs. The cuts to local support services over the past decade have hollowed out the safety net, leaving too many people without help at the moment they need it most. I have long been a champion of Housing First, a model that provides stable housing alongside intensive wraparound support. The evidence for its effectiveness is overwhelming, yet too many areas lack the funding to deliver it at scale.

When I worked on the supported housing Act, it became clear that rogue operators had thrived precisely because legitimate, well-regulated support had been stripped back. If we want to eliminate exploitation and end homelessness we must rebuild the foundations of proper support. I ask the Minister: what discussions is she having with colleagues across Government about addressing the chronic underfunding of support services? Will the forthcoming homelessness strategy include clear measures to ensure that everyone, regardless of their needs, can access the right help to rebuild their lives?

Homelessness is not inevitable. It is not a natural part of modern life. It is the product of policy choices, systems that fail to intervene soon enough and services that are no longer adequately resourced to meet the need. We have an opportunity and a duty to end that. This is a moment to bring together not only Government Departments, but local authorities, charities, faith groups and communities to deliver on our shared ambition that everyone should have a safe and secure place to call home.

At oral questions last week, the Minister said she never knowingly misses an opportunity to meet an APPG. In that spirit, I warmly invite her to join us at the APPG for ending homelessness annual general meeting, which will take place between 1 pm and 2 pm on 11 November, where she can discuss these issues further—and of course we will benefit from her words at the meeting. I place on record my sincere thanks to the APPG secretariat—Rosie, Matt, Jasmine and all the team at Crisis—for their outstanding work in co-ordinating our efforts, and to the 47 parliamentarians and 27 sector organisations serving on the steering group. Their commitment, expertise and compassion drives this agenda forward every single day.

This debate is not just an opportunity to restate our concern; it must be a catalyst for action. Homelessness is not inevitable. It is solvable. The test of any Government and any Parliament is whether we have the courage and compassion to solve it. Let us make sure that no child grows up without a place to call home, and that no person has to face another winter on the streets. Let us act together to end homelessness once and for all.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a lot of interest in this debate. If a Member is intending to speak, please stand so that we have a chance to make sure everyone can make a contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Minister for her response, and I thank Members for, by my reckoning,18 speeches and four interventions, which demonstrate the importance of this debate. Through the Everyone In programme, we proved during covid that it is possible to solve homelessness and rough sleeping. Unfortunately, that programme was not built on afterwards to end rough sleeping.

Given some of the things that Members have added to the debate, I point out that the law exists to prevent local authorities from pushing homeless people far away from their homes, particularly if they have children or jobs. The law is in place; what is needed now is a coherent cross-Government strategy to combat homelessness, so that we can end it once and for all.

I thank you, Mr Efford, for your chairmanship, and I apologise to colleagues who were short-changed in terms of time. That demonstrates the importance of this debate, and how we need to have another debate on the issue in the near future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered progress on ending homelessness.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Our priority is to make sure that we tackle the root causes of the housing shortage and homelessness. That is why we are building 1.5 million homes and investing record amounts in housing and tackling homelessness, including £1 billion for the next year.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Since the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was passed, local authorities have prevented 1.4 million people from becoming homeless. However, there is still evidence of local authorities refusing to plan to prevent people becoming homeless. Will the Minister take up the private Member’s Bill that I championed the other week, and that was given an unopposed Second Reading, so that we put pressure on the people who should provide the housing, and no one in this country is forced to sleep rough?

[Rushanara Ali]

The hon. Gentleman has done a great deal of cross-party work in support of housing. We have a consultation in place. I am pleased to say that I have met him on a couple of occasions, and he will be aware that we are working hard and at pace to tackle the underlying challenges. There are 164,000 children in temporary accommodation, and rough sleeping has gone up by 164% since 2010. We are determined to take action to deal with the challenges, but that will require concerted work. The Deputy Prime Minister is leading the interdepartmental taskforce on homelessness. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way he has constructively challenged and worked with us on behalf of his constituents. I know this report has great personal significance for his constituents, and I pay tribute to his dedicated work as an advocate in calling for truth, justice and change for the Grenfell community.

I agree that robust oversight of the Government’s implementation of the response is essential for this, and for all public inquiries. The system needs to be improved and we are taking forward the inquiry’s recommendations on oversight. We will create a publicly accessible record on gov.uk of recommendations made by public inquiries since 2024, and we will consider making that a legal requirement as part of a wider review of the inquiry’s framework.

On the Grenfell inquiry recommendations, my Department will publish quarterly progress updates on gov.uk until they have all been delivered. We will report annually to Parliament to enable Members to scrutinise our progress and hold us to account.

On my hon. Friend’s comments about the council, the council failed in some of its most fundamental duties to keep residents safe, to listen to their concerns and to respond effectively when disaster struck. The council was right to apologise, but it is clear that more must be done. I have welcomed the council’s commitment to improvement and culture change, and I have set my challenge to the leader of the council to ensure that those improvements are a reality felt by the council’s residents. I will continue to engage and keep an eye on that progress.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. All our thoughts are with the victims and their families. I know the Secretary of State will keep us up to date about the permanent memorial. However, the big failure that she has not spoken about was the testing regime for the products that were put on Grenfell, and on buildings up and down the country. Firms deliberately cheated the testing regime system, so products were signed off as safe. Will she undertake to overhaul safety mechanisms and the testing regime for products, so that buildings, both the ones we have already and those built in the future, will be safe for the residents who live in them?

[Angela Rayner]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government are committed to a system-wide reform of the construction product regime, ensuring that we address the significant gaps that the Grenfell inquiry and the independent review of the construction product testing regime have exposed. The construction products Green Paper that we have published today is a significant step forward towards a construction products regime that has public safety at its heart. I hope we can continue to work across Government and across the House to ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose for the future.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler). I wish her well in her recovery from cold and flu.

I thank the Government for putting on this debate and for making sure that we continue to honour the victims of the Holocaust, and I thank the Minister for both the tone and content of his opening speech. I declare my interest as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Holocaust memorial since its formation in 2018, and I am also proud to chair the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel.

This Holocaust Memorial Day is particularly prominent and poignant, as it marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest concentration camp during the war. Time is going quickly, and many of the courageous and inspirational survivors are sadly passing away, so it is important that we preserve their memories and stories, and teach the next generations, so that we do not make the same mistakes again. I think I have spoken in every Holocaust memorial debate since I was elected in 2010, and today I will focus on the origins of the Holocaust, and on how the United Kingdom could and should have done more to prevent it.

The Holocaust was one of the most tragic events the world has ever seen. The brutal, systematic murder of 6 million Jewish men, women and children by the Nazis in Germany and their collaborators during the second world war must always serve as a stark reminder of the evils that can be perpetrated by humankind. The Jewish genocide did not officially start until January 1939, but Jews have been irrationally targeted throughout the centuries, dating back to as early as 270 BC. I do not intend to go through the history of that.

Let us fast forward to the end of the great war, when the escalation of antisemitism was about to begin. The allied forces sanctioned Germany extremely harshly at the end of the great war. Germany had to accept full blame for the war and pay £6.6 billion—in today’s money, that is a huge amount—because of the damage it caused during the war. Alsace-Lorraine, which had been taken from France by Germany in the 1871 war, was returned to the French, and the Anschluss was banned. Germany was allowed to have only 100,000 soldiers, with no tanks and no air force, and its navy could have a maximum of six battleships. The Rhineland, an area of Germany on the border with France, was demilitarised, and Woodrow Wilson’s idea for a League of Nations was agreed to. The reparations caused immense problems for the German people, who universally believed that they were too harsh, not least because of the damage and instability that they caused to the German economy. Many held a lot of anger and were ready to shift their blame, which fell on the Jews.

Shortly after that was the great depression, sparked by the Wall Street stock market crash of 1929. Economies across the globe were affected, leading to a crisis in world trade, prices and employment. Almost overnight, the regular loans from the United States through the Dawes plan, on which the German economy depended, ceased. Hitler, a rising star in the German political scene at the time, promised that the humiliation of Versailles would be avenged and that Germany would be made great again. Many Germans believed that they had been betrayed by the high command of the army in the great war, and they were tired of endless ineffective coalition Governments following the war.

Hitler had no connections to the elite, and he offered a new beginning. Most of all, he promised jobs and bread at a time when unemployment and poverty were at extremely high levels. It is important to ask the question: if we had acted differently after the great war, would Hitler ever have come to power? Of course, we know that he did and that his Nazis embarked on a systematic and deliberate attempt at extinguishing the Jewish race across Europe.

Next Monday marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, which was the largest concentration and extermination camp used by the Nazis. The site consisted of Auschwitz I, which was the main camp; Auschwitz II-Birkenau, a concentration and extermination camp with gas chambers and incinerators; Auschwitz III-Monowitz, a labour camp for the chemical conglomerate IG Farben; and dozens of other sub-camps. The camps became a major site of the Nazis’ horrific final solution to the Jewish question.

Between 1942 and late 1944, freight trains delivered Jews from all over Nazi-occupied Europe, and collaborators from across those different countries joined in. A shocking 1.3 million people were sent to Auschwitz, where 1.1 million were sadly murdered. Some 960,000 were Jews, 865,000 of whom were gassed on arrival, having been singled out for immediate extinction. About 74,000 non-Jewish Poles, 21,000 Romani, 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war and 15,000 others were also killed. Those who were sent to the camp but escaped being gassed were murdered through starvation, exhaustion, disease, individual executions or beatings. Others were killed during torturous medical experiments—we should remember what that must have been like.

The first mass transport to arrive at Auschwitz, on 14 June 1940, contained 728 Polish male political prisoners, including Catholic priests and Jews. By 1942, transport was arriving regularly, containing thousands of Jews who were all earmarked for execution. If inmates were lucky enough not to be sent straight to the gas chamber on arrival, they were sent to the prisoner reception centre, where they were tattooed, shaved, disinfected and given a striped prison uniform. The horrors escalated dramatically from there. Youth and fitness for work gained prisoners a temporary reprieve from the gas chambers.

From the time they entered Auschwitz-Birkenau, everything was done to debase and dehumanise the Jews. Their immediate gassing was delayed in order to rob them of their individuality. Each was identified solely by the number that he or she was designated.

The day would start at 4.30 am with a roll call. Prisoners would walk to their place of work, wearing striped uniforms and ill-fitting wooden shoes without socks. Kapos, the prisoner supervisors, were responsible for the prisoners’ behaviour and conformity while they worked, as was an SS escort. The working day lasted 12 hours and was marked by torture and fatigue. Much of the work took place at construction sites, quarries and lumber yards. Visits to the latrines were permitted only at designated times, not when nature called. Work was carried out in the shadow and smoke of the crematoria chimneys that burned incessantly day and night, burning the bodies of murdered Jews and others, invariably including the family members of those forced to work. The belching smoke was a constant reminder of their potential fate.

In the evening, after block inspection, there was a second mandatory roll call. If a prisoner was missing, the others had to remain in place until he or she was found, or the reason for his or her absence discovered. After roll call, individual and collective punishments were meted out before the prisoners were permitted to return to their barracks for the night and receive their bread rations and water. Prisoners received a hot drink in the morning, but no breakfast, and a watery, meatless turnip soup at noon. In the evening, they received a small ration of bread. At no time did their daily intake exceed 700 calories.

Sanitary conditions were poor, with inadequate latrines and a lack of water. The camp was infested with vermin, such as disease-carrying lice. Inmates suffered and died during epidemics of typhus and other contagious diseases.

While we commemorate 80 years since Auschwitz was liberated, it is important to note that there were 23 main camps across Europe, each with a series of internal camps, totalling over 1,000 camps in all—all dedicated to the torture and extermination of the Jewish community.

To implement the final solution during the latter years of the war, the Nazis built extermination camps on Polish soil. We must remember Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek and, of course, Auschwitz-Birkenau. I commend the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust for their brilliant work to educate us about the horrors that people endured. I urge the Minister to confirm funding for the Holocaust Educational Trust’s wonderful “Lessons from Auschwitz” programme so that young people can learn what happened.

It is clear that the Nazis deliberately set out to kill the 6 million Jews, but there are many actions that we in the UK and the United States could have taken. Auschwitz was accessed by a vast network of rail routes, bringing trains full of Jews from across Europe. At no point did the allied forces choose to bomb those rail networks to prevent access to the camp.

In 1944, the US Department of War refused multiple requests from Jewish leaders to bomb the railway lines leading to the camps, despite 452 bombers of the 15th Air Force flying along and across the deportation railway lines on their way to bomb the Blechhammer oil refineries just weeks later.

Time and again, military commanders said that a precision strike on the camp had no chance of success. However, no study was ever made. Proposals to drop weapons into the camp to enable a rebellion were considered but abandoned. From 1942 to 1943, British intelligence was regularly able to intercept and decode radio messages sent by the German order police, which included daily prisoner returns and death tolls for the 10 concentration camps, including Auschwitz, yet no action was taken. Another common argument is that the allies did not know the numbers and the horrors of the camps until after the war, despite the fact that hundreds of prisoners escaped and described their ordeals.

The US Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency that had been established in 1941-42 to co-ordinate intelligence and espionage activities in enemy territory, had received reports about Auschwitz in 1942, but no action was taken to target the camp. On 7 April 1944, two young Jewish inmates who had escaped from the camp, Rudolf Vrba and Alfréd Wetzler, published detailed information about the camp’s geography, the gas chambers and the numbers being killed. Roswell McClelland, the US War Refugee Board representative in Switzerland, is known to have received a copy by mid-June and sent it to the board’s executive director, but no action was taken.

We are 80 years on from the liberation of Auschwitz. Antisemitism has increased significantly in the UK and globally following the 7 October attacks by Hamas and the subsequent war in Gaza. Many UK communities feel vulnerable, with hostility and suspicion of others rising. We hope that Holocaust Memorial Day 2025 can be an opportunity for people to come together, learn from and about the past, and take action to make a better future for all.

I finish on two points. First, it is extremely concerning to see the stark rise in open antisemitism on our streets following the 7 October attacks on Israel by the terrorist organisation Hamas. Jewish people are afraid to go about their lives, and have to hide their identity for fear of being attacked in their own country. We have reiterated, time and again, that the Holocaust must serve as a reminder that we must never allow such persecution of any race or religion, so we must make a conscious effort to stand up against such violations on our own streets.

Secondly, the Minister kindly mentioned the Holocaust Memorial Bill, which is going through Parliament. Sadly, as time moves forward, survivors are passing, and there are fewer and fewer to share their stories. It is crucial that we enable the Holocaust memorial to be built alongside this place, together with the education centre, so that future generations can learn the true horror of what happened during the war and pass it on to their children, so that we never allow history to repeat itself. I have had the privilege of visiting the original Yad Vashem and the modern-day Yad Vashem. Those who visit will know the horrors that the Jewish people encountered, and it is hard to express those horrors. We must make the Bill’s passage a matter of urgency, so that the few Holocaust survivors still with us can see the centre for themselves and be proud of the amazing work they have done in sharing their stories.

I leave the House with the poignant words of Sir Ben Helfgott MBE, a Holocaust survivor and successful Olympic weightlifter. His words should resonate with us all when assessing the urgency of this project:

“I look forward to one day taking my family to the new national memorial and learning centre, telling the story of Britain and the Holocaust. And one day, I hope that my children and grandchildren will take their children and grandchildren, and that they will remember all those who came before them, including my mother, Sara, my sister, Luisa, and my father, Moishe.”

Sadly, Sir Ben died last year. I have no doubt that, through the memorial and learning centre, his memory and story will live on for his children, grandchildren and generations to come, so that we can all learn the lessons of the Holocaust and vow never to repeat them.

Building Homes

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend has real expertise in this area. We are making a distinction between social rented homes—the most affordable type of affordable housing—and others, and we have sought to express that through a change to the glossary in the framework that separates social rented housing from other forms of housing. He is right that brownfield delivery involves additional challenges. We are very cognisant of those, and we are exploring how the variety of Government funds that support the delivery of brownfield sites might be improved as we go forward.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Minister has alluded to one of the challenges with planning permissions—namely that, on any one day, there are something like 1 million unbuilt permissions for new housing. Developers ration the supply in order to keep the price high, so will he consider, as I think he did in opposition, the principle of “use it or lose it”? At the moment a developer will get a permission, which is repeatedly sold on until viability means the site cannot be developed. If the planning permissions were either brought forward or lost if they were not used in time, we could get the houses and homes that people want.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), has great expertise in this area. He will know that local authorities already have powers to issue a completion notice to require a developer to complete a stalled development. To bring greater transparency and accountability to this area, we seek to go further by taking the necessary steps to implement build-out reporting. I assure him that I am giving a lot of attention to what more we might do on build-out, because developers have made commitments to increase the pace of build-out across the country. We need to make sure they follow through with that.