Bob Blackman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Dec 2025 · Animal Welfare Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Since we cannot scrutinise the strategy today, may I ask what action is included in it to phase out animal testing in scientific laboratories?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the Backbench Business for the Chamber when we come back. I congratulate him on being briefed immediately, given that the offers were accepted only this morning. In addition, the business in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 6 January will be a debate on less survivable cancers. On Thursday 8 January, the Liaison Committee has taken up the option for a debate on the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report; the second debate will be on Myanmar and religious minority persecution. On Tuesday 13 January there will be a debate on the potential merits of a statutory duty of care for universities. Offers are outstanding for the Thursday, so we are waiting to hear back on those. I join others in condemning the terrible atrocities at Bondi Beach and in expressing sympathy for the victims and their families. It has always been the case that chants such as, “Globalise the intifada”, “Death to the IDF”, and, “From the river to the sea” are deeply antisemitic. They should be arrestable offences, and there should be prosecutions as a result. Yesterday, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and his counterpart in Manchester released a statement saying that, in future, those chants will be arrestable offences, but that begs a number of questions. Does that apply only to London and Manchester? What about the rest of England? What about Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales? What guidance is the Home Secretary issuing to the police on the actions that should be taken against those who chant those sorts of antisemitic tropes? Will the Leader of the House encourage the Home Secretary or one of the Home Office Ministers to come before the House immediately when we return—or this afternoon, if necessary—to make clear what the position is, so that people understand what they can say and what will happen to them as a result of chanting those antisemitic tropes?

• 18 Dec 2025 · 15th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Our standard position is that for a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate, eight speakers are required. That is, I think, a reasonable number for a 90-minute debate. Four should come from the Government side and four from the Opposition—that is the combined Opposition, not restricted to one party. For Chamber debates, it is perfectly reasonable that we look to get 15 speakers with, broadly speaking, a balance between Opposition and Government Members. In this Session, 70% of the Chamber debates have had time limits imposed on Back-Bench speakers, and I suspect this afternoon will be another such debate, so we do get enough speakers. There was one debate I well remember—I will not name the colleague, who is no longer in this place—where the Member came along with a huge list of something like 85 Members who wished to take part. He stood up and spoke, and no one else had come along to speak. After that, I have been very conscious that we have to ensure that people sign up not only to agree to the debate, but to turn up and speak.

• 18 Dec 2025 · 15th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The reality is that it is for the Petitions Committee to come forward with those debates. Of course I would strongly support the Petitions Committee having time in the Chamber—as long as it does not detract from the Backbench Business time that is available. Equally, if the right hon. Member and colleagues wish to come forward with an application on the subject that he raises, I am sure that our Committee would look at it very sympathetically, particularly as it was such a well-attended debate.

• 18 Dec 2025 · 15th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  With permission, I will make a statement about the report on the first 15 years of the Backbench Business Committee. As Members will be aware, the Backbench Business Committee came out of the Wright reforms presented to this House, all bar one of which have been implemented. The only one that has not been implemented is the requirement for a House Business Committee, but I will leave that to the Leader of the House to consider in the future. I pay tribute to my two predecessors as Chair of the Committee: Natascha Engel and Ian Mearns. They led the Committee with appropriate dignity and initiated many different reforms in this place. I have had the pleasure of serving on the Committee for 14 of its 15 years, so I have witnessed at first hand the excellent work they did. Our role is very simple: to encourage debates on a wide range of subjects that the Government do not necessarily wish to be debated in the House. We also have a duty to ensure that requests for debates have cross-party support, to use the time as effectively as possible. We also allow for Select Committee statements to take place, and I remind Select Committee Chairs that they can apply to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on reports they produce, which may lead to a motion on the Order Paper if they so wish. There is a slight problem with this, which I recommend the Leader of the House looks at seriously. At the moment, the Standing Order requires such statements to be within five working days of the publication of a Select Committee report. We would like to see that extended to 10 working days, to allow more flexibility for Select Committee Chairs to make appropriate statements to the House on the work they have done. I turn to the issue of substantive motions, which are divisible motions that the House can consider. Between 2010 and 2012—the first two years of the Committee—63% of the debates in this Chamber were on divisible motions. In the last two years, that figure has reduced to 25%. In our Committee’s report, we have summarised how that has changed over the years. I think there is a reason for that: divisible motions are not binding on the Government, and there is hardly ever a vote on them—they are normally nodded through. I urge the Leader of the House to look at this. Could we have a framework for action on the motions passed by this House? What action are the Government prepared to take on those, and will they report back to the House? At the moment, generally speaking, we are confined to Thursdays for Backbench Business debates in the Chamber. One of the suggestions we have made in our report is that we should be given more time between Mondays and Wednesdays, possibly with 90-minute debates either before or after appropriate Government time, to allow Back Benchers to have debates on issues that they wish to discuss. I have to say—and today is another day when it has happened—that our debates are often curtailed by urgent questions and statements from the Government. That is unfair on Back Benchers who are here to take part in important debates that they have sponsored. Indeed, there are often visitors in the Public Gallery who have come to witness those debates. We need to do something about that, to prevent Backbench Business debates from being curtailed and colleagues having to give short speeches. On Westminster Hall, we have the opportunity to allocate the 90-minute debate on Tuesday morning and debates on Thursday afternoon. We have suggested once again—I hope the Leader of the House will look at this sympathetically—that we bring forward the debates on a Thursday afternoon from 1.30 pm to 12.30 pm and from 3 pm to 2 pm. That would allow Members to get away and close Westminster Hall at an earlier time, which would be much more convenient for staff; we often have rejections of offers—unfairly, in my view—for the second slot on Thursday afternoons. Given that we look rigorously at the applications submitted, I also suggest that it would be helpful if we looked at more allocation on Tuesdays and Wednesdays in Westminster Hall so that we can ensure that there is sufficient support across parties to make sure those debates are balanced. That is obviously in the hands of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, and I respect that. The Procedure Committee has made certain recommendations. It does not have to wait for a Government motion to be put, but can apply for time under the Backbench Business Committee for a business of the House motion. I am not accusing the current Government of this, but it has often been the case that a Government have frustrated the Procedure Committee when it wants to make changes by not making time available. I alert the Procedure Committee to that opportunity. Equally, one of the things that we are looking at—I would want to work with the Leader of the House on this—is the allocation of more topical debates. At the moment, we have a six-month waiting list for debates. That means that by the time those debates come up, the topicality has often gone. If we could get to a point whereby we could announce a topical debate on a Tuesday, have bids before our meeting and then announce the result of that for a Thursday, that would really give the debate a topical timing. However, I believe that would require a change in Standing Orders. One of the issues that we have often had complaints about is the fact that our Backbench Business Committee is the only Select Committee in the House that has to have elections after every King’s Speech and state opening. That means that there is a delay after the King’s Speech until a Chair and Committee members are elected, at just the time when there is often an opportunity for general debates, either in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall. May we change that so that the chairmanship is continuous throughout the life of the Parliament? There is a further issue: the reform of private Members’ Bills. I have piloted three such Bills through this place to successful conclusion. However, they are dependent, frankly, on a raffle—if a Member is successful in the raffle, they will do well. One of the things that the Procedure Committee recommended when I was on it, and that I am glad to see it is still recommending, is for the Backbench Business Committee to be able to consider prioritising for the first four sitting Fridays the bids for private Members’ Bills that are well-founded, have cross-party support and for which detailed work has been done, rather than someone getting drawn in the lottery of the ballot and then deciding what they are going to do. I think that would be better way of making law. I will not continue any longer, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to any questions that colleagues may have.

• 18 Dec 2025 · 15th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The reality is that the sponsor of the debate is responsible not only for the content of their speech, but for encouraging the press to get involved and promote the debate. The debates can be on a wide range of topics. One of the great things about the Backbench Business Committee is that we consider things that most people have never even thought of as possible debates. Importantly, it is therefore incumbent on the individuals who propose the debates to promote them appropriately.

• 18 Dec 2025 · 15th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the question from our honorary season ticket holder at the Backbench Business Committee. As is stated in the report, prior to the 2019 general election, the hon. Member appeared before the Committee no less than 44 times with applications. He has continued to do that, and of course he is the top Member for number of applications before the Committee, and we are always pleased to grant appropriate ones. I am encouraged that large numbers of MPs, including new ones who have never been before the Committee, come with an application that is well supported across the House. I think the message has got out that this is the one of the best ways that Members can get a debate on an issue that affects them.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Christmas Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  With the leave of the House, I thank the other 25 Back Benchers and the three Front Benchers who have contributed, who have made this such an interesting debate for all those who have sat through all of it. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for managing the debate so that we actually got everyone in who wished to contribute. It remains for me to wish Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers, the whole House, all our staff and everyone who makes this place tick a very Merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah and a happy, peaceful, prosperous and, above all else, healthy new year. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered matters to be raised before the Christmas adjournment.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Christmas Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered matters to be raised before the Christmas adjournment. I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Members, their staff and all the staff here in Parliament a very merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah, and a happy, peaceful, prosperous and, above all else, healthy new year. As the nights are drawing in, we will undoubtedly all be lucifugous by the spring—explanations of that will come later. Let me turn to local matters in my constituency. When the Conservative party took over Harrow council back in 2022, it was mired in corruption, there were backlogs in road, pothole and pavement maintenance, and basic services were not being delivered to residents, who pay a high level of council tax. Well, things have changed. The administration is now spending more than £40 million across three years on the highways budget, and it is very apparent on our roads and pavements that things have changed. We have also rolled out one hour of free parking across the borough. That is the most generous parking allowance anywhere in London. Fly-tipping, which I know is also the blight of many other areas of the country, is being addressed. In the past year alone, more than 1,000 fines were issued to the culprits of fly-tipping. The council has even reopened phone lines so that people can call and actually speak to a human being at the council, which was not possible for many years—I welcome that. In Rayners Lane, the council is tackling the scourge of double parking and stopping those who think that they can simply park their car in the middle of the road, lock it and go off to the shops. Thanks to Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar, there is now an enormously successful red route. More than 500 fines were issued in the first week, and awareness of the scheme rules is growing. I just hope that, when he visits Rayners Lane, Santa Claus does not park in the middle of the road, because he will get a ticket. To tackle fly-tipping, the council has introduced one free annual bulky waste collection for every household. That is making a huge difference. We know what it is like when people want to dispose of freezers, wardrobes or sofas. We want them to be cleared up quickly. As well as the bulky waste collections, there are drop-and-go sessions for which the council sets up a recycling centre in a car park, so that residents can drop off their waste. That is extremely popular and has reduced fly-tipping—people can see the difference. However, those who dump rubbish on the streets of Harrow or elsewhere should suffer the penalties for doing so. Harrow suffered criminal fly-tipping that was similar to, but not as large as, that in Oxfordshire. It is vital that residents continue to report fly-tipping and that action is taken. There could have been even better news for residents in Harrow this week, as we were all looking forward to confirmation that Harrow’s first special educational needs and disabilities school in more than a generation will be built. The money to build and operate the school was delivered under the previous Conservative Government, but in common with so many other projects, when this Labour Government came into office they froze the proposal and we have been struggling to get clarity ever since. Indeed, the Budget was supposed to have been an early Christmas present for residents, but it has turned into a nightmare before Christmas. Certain Labour Members—not Conservatives—were told about the bubble and squeak medley of the announcement last week. Money was announced to improve existing SEND facilities in mainstream schools, while the Government are now minded to cancel the new school that had been promised by the previous Labour administration in Harrow. The much-needed SEND school at 265 The Ridgeway, where the previous Harrow Labour administration wanted to build flats, is in continued limbo, with alternative funding to be provided—you could not make it up. The school needs to be built urgently, because children are being sent for an hour and half each way to specialist schools miles outside the borough, which is costing the council an incredible amount. That is bad news for their education and their mental health. Spades could be in the ground now and the school could be opening soon, but we need the money and we need the school built now. Similarly, hon. Members will have heard that the Labour Mayor of London is breaking yet another manifesto promise by closing police front counters across the capital, including in Harrow and in Pinner. It is unacceptable that the mayor can promise before the election that everything will be better with a Labour Government and a Labour mayor, while knowing the state of London’s finances, and then blatantly break that promise. As one of our local councillors put it, the pantomime villain in this endless saga is the big baddie—the Mayor of London. Police front counters are a vital safe haven for women and girls. Those who have unfortunately been sexually molested or raped need to go somewhere safe to report the crime committed against them. In the case of Pinner, the front desk was being run by volunteers, so there is very little saving. I urge the Government and the Home Secretary to step in, and to join the thousands of residents who have signed my petition and the petition organised by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), to keep the front desks open at the police stations in Harrow and Pinner, as was promised. Hon. Members who have attended these debates before will know that I have campaigned constantly for step-free access and lifts in stations in Harrow for a long time, and that campaign continues. When I was first elected, I took up the cudgels on this, and there is now the good news that Canons Park station has finally been shortlisted for a feasibility study. I hope that that happens. However, we still await news about Queensbury station and, more importantly, Stanmore station. Stanmore is designated as step-free, but in reality passengers face a choice of 48 steps to the main entrance, 16 steps via the car park, 24 steps at the side to the bus stop or the so-called step-free route, which is 140 metres long and includes a steep ramp that even the Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson could not complete unaided. For the past six or seven months, my office has been working to get Stanmore delisted as step-free and obtain a proper definition of what step-free means, so that we can then work to get lifts or adaptations installed. I urge colleagues who face similar problems to contact my office so that we can work together. While I am on the subject of transport, Transport for London continues to blame the September 2024 cyber-attack for the backlog in private hire vehicle and private carriage office licences, which is unacceptable and is delaying many of my constituents in gaining work. The new Piccadilly line trains have been delayed again, and are not expected until late next year. Graffiti on the Bakerloo and Central lines continues to get worse, despite the head of TfL claiming that vigilantes from Looking for Growth were painting graffiti on to then clean it off, which is a completely ridiculous position. Homelessness in England is increasing. Crisis found record levels of homelessness, with more than 300,000 individuals and families experiencing its worst forms in 2024, which is an increase of 22%. London has the greatest homelessness pressures, and one in 50 Londoners and, sadly, at least one child in every London classroom is homeless. As we approach Christmas, many of us will be doing our shopping, seeing family and loved ones, and maybe turning the heating up a bit, but let us think of those sleeping rough: cold, wet and often hungry, on a park bench or in a shop corner, in sub-zero temperatures overnight. There are no official stats on how many homeless people are, sadly, dying in their sleep, but one has only to imagine the harsh and life-threatening conditions that they have to endure. There are steps that can be taken, and I invite the Government to take them. My oven-ready Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which is yet to be implemented, could help. My private Member’s Bill, which had an unopposed Second Reading, is still waiting for its Committee and Report stages and conclusion, but we can take other steps. Local authorities have to meet rising costs so that victims of domestic abuse are not forgotten and hospital discharges and the plight of temporary accommodation are not ignored. I thank the team at Crisis and all the other charities for the work that they do to help homeless people. I represent Harrow East, which is the most diverse constituency in the country, with someone from every faith and country in the world and speakers of every language spoken on earth, so I deal with a large chunk of matters related to the Home Office. However, it has not helped that my staff have been told not to chase cases for upwards of a year. They will get no updates for 12 months, and even longer in some cases, so I am left flabbergasted and discombobulated by the position. The Government must be thorough in their checks, but it does not do much for my constituents, their family members or my staff to be told month after month, “I’m sorry, but there is no update.” My office recently met Home Office officials to manage expectations and make it clear that I am not going to stop chasing the applications until they are decided overall, not just closed. Indeed, in my role as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue, I have been continually raising the issue of the Grenfell Tower inquiry recommendations. I note that a written ministerial statement about that is on the Order Paper, but we have other issues, such as lithium-ion batteries, solar panels, modern construction methods and other technologies, that come into the proposals. I know you want me to wind up, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have three quick points. On Iran, let the Government come forward and proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety, as they promised when they were in opposition. On India and Bangladesh, let us ensure that there are free and fair elections that include every single party; in my humble opinion, the outlawing of the Awami League is an outrage. I am delighted that we have reformed the Azerbaijan all-party parliamentary group, and we are looking for increased trade, which was worth £888 million in the last 12 months alone. I was delighted to captain the House of Commons bridge team this year to a commanding victory over the House of Lords. I was even honoured with the award for the best-played hand. My partner, the former MP Aaron Bell, left me in a very difficult contract, but I managed to make it. While we sit on these green Benches and praise and thank everyone, we must always think about the incredible team behind us. My team in my office this year has dealt with more than 12,000 individual cases, bringing the total to almost 100,000 cases since I was elected in 2010. I thank my entire team: my wife Nicola; Hattie Shoosmith, who has now gone off to Dubai; Matthew Goodwin-Freeman; James Thomson; Rhys Benjamin; James Bourke; and Gabriele Montone for their work. I hope they have a good rest over Christmas and are ready to do it all again next year. One member of my team, Rhys Benjamin, is off to Australia—hopefully he will see some cricket and see a turnaround of England’s fortunes in the Ashes. Merry Christmas.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the strategy. The Minister will well know that children from homes in which domestic violence is prevalent are all too often conditioned to believe that that is the normal way for relationships to operate. Through changes to the national curriculum in particular, will she ensure that teachers encourage children to come forward with examples of what has happened at home and elsewhere in their families? In that way, we can deal with these matters where they start: in the home.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  Notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State has said that the chances of a successful prosecution are very limited indeed, the punishment is in the process of investigation and trial in the first place. Will the Secretary of State look sympathetically at appropriate amendments to the Bill to make sure that the bar is raised very high, so that it is almost impossible for one of our brave veterans to be prosecuted in our courts?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Africa: New Approach · Hansard source

  More

  One of the issues is what the effect of the new policy will be. To take one example, what will be the position of the new policy on Nigeria, where so many girls are not in education? The UK has invested in education to encourage them, but many of them come under threat from Islamists who try to convert them.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Chagossians: Trust Fund and Resettlement · Hansard source

  More

  I accept the fact that the treaty and the UN report will be discussed further in the other place, but the Minister is here to answer our questions, and we are the only ones who are able to question the issue. What is the Government’s reaction to the United Nations reports, and will they honour the recommendations?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  He’s even turned one down, Mr Speaker. Right now we are in the middle of a flu epidemic, and the number of patients presenting themselves at hospitals has increased by 50% in a week. I am sure all Members will have taken the sensible precaution of getting our flu vaccines as early as we could. We do not know the result of the doctors ballot, but I am sure we all hope that they will come to their senses and not go on strike. I got an email this week from one of my constituents that was very concerning. He is a 76-year-old man, and he went to his GP surgery to have his flu vaccine. The GP said, “I’m very sorry, but you are too old to have a flu vaccine in the surgery. You must go to the pharmacist.” My constituent went to his local chemist, who said, “I’m very sorry. There are no flu vaccines for people of your age. You can go on a waiting list and wait for what might happen.” That is a real concern for everyone out there who might be seeking a flu vaccine, and we want them to come forward and be vaccinated. Could we have a statement from the Health Secretary next week about the availability of flu vaccines, whether there are age restrictions on those vaccines, and what will be done to increase supply?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, the business in Westminster Hall next week will be, on Tuesday 16 December a debate on planning policy for quarries, and on Thursday 18 December a debate on the literary and cultural legacy of Jane Austen, followed by a debate on community audiology. When we come back after the Christmas recess, on Tuesday 6 January there will be a debate on less survivable cancers, and on Thursday 8 January the Liaison Committee will be taking the first slot on a report from the Scottish Affairs Committee. I thank the Leader of the House for his kind remarks at the Procedure Committee earlier this week about the work of the Backbench Business Committee and, indeed, my remarkable work, which he complimented. We will publish next week the report on the first 15 years of the Backbench Business Committee, with some recommendations for how we may improve the position of Backbench Business. We now have enough applications for debates in the Chamber to last until after the Easter recess, and for Tuesday debates in Westminster Hall until probably after the May recess. Indeed, the only slots available at the moment are the second slots in Westminster Hall on a Thursday—I cannot imagine why that might be.

• 11 Dec 2025 · National Plan to End Homelessness · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have looked through the agenda up until Christmas, and it appears that there is no opportunity for Members to question either the police settlement or the local government settlement. Normally there is a debate held about both of these matters, or at least a statement given on the Floor of the House, so that Members are able to ask questions on the settlements. I understand it seems to be the Government’s intention to put out a written ministerial statement on the last day of Parliament and not to give us an opportunity to challenge. Local authorities are at the moment finalising their budgets for next year, so they need to know how much funding they are going to get from the Government. Could you use your good offices to encourage the Government to come forward with at least a statement?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Support for NHS Patients · Hansard source

  More

  One of the challenges that the NHS faces is dealing with people who are street homeless and who have to go into hospital for treatment. They are then discharged, and it is almost like a rotating saw, unfortunately. What is needed now is targeted funding to ensure that the NHS discharges people to somewhere they have a safe place to live. Will the Minister take up that challenge, particularly at this time of year?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Homelessness: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Homelessness: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Homelessness: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Homelessness: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Homelessness: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 1 Dec 2025 · SEND: Specialist Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that answer. The last Government approved the new SEND school in Harrow, which is supported on a cross-party basis and by all headteachers in Harrow. At the moment, young children have to travel an hour and a half each way to get to specialist schools, which is costing the taxpayer huge amounts of money, and that is unacceptable for those children with special educational needs. All we need is the Department to give its approval, and that school could go ahead and start almost immediately. If this funding is available, will she make it available to the London borough of Harrow to start the school that everyone wants?

• 1 Dec 2025 · SEND: Specialist Schools · Hansard source

  More

  22. What steps she plans to take to provide new specialist schools for children with SEND.