The House | The Supported Housing Act is welcome progress, but the government must go further

4 min read4 min

Last month, I spoke at the launch of Emmaus UK’s Rebuilding Lives report – peer-led research carried out with, and by, people who have experienced homelessness and now live in supported housing. Their testimony was powerful and timely: this is a high-stakes moment for supported housing, and one we must get right.

Supported housing is perhaps easy to overlook until you hear about its impact from the people who know best. At the launch, I heard directly from residents about what it means to them: a stable base from which to rebuild, a sense of purpose, community, and belonging. One resident described how the work opportunities and activities at their Emmaus community had transformed their mental health in ways that simply having a roof over their head never could. That is what good supported housing does. It helps people to heal, recover, and rebuild their lives.

The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act is introducing the most significant reform to this sector in a generation – new national standards, a licensing regime, and changes to Housing Benefit. At the same time, rough sleeping is at record levels, one in three supported housing providers closed schemes last year due to funding pressures, and thousands of people are trapped in temporary accommodation with nowhere suitable to move on to.

This is a critical moment for supported housing that has the potential to safeguard the delivery of quality provision for generations to come – but only if we can get implementation right.

There has been welcome progress. The government has just published its long-awaited consultation response on implementing the Act, which shows that some genuinely important concerns have been listened to.

The scheme definition has been amended so that dispersed housing providers won’t face a separate licence application for each postal address. The list of exemptions for providers already regulated elsewhere has been expanded. Local authorities have lost the ability to impose discretionary licensing conditions, preventing a damaging postcode lottery of requirements. And the ‘local need’ standard has been clarified to exclude local connection tests – which, as the Rebuilding Lives report highlights, can actively block access to support for people who need it most.

However, some notable gaps remain, and if left unaddressed, they risk turning a landmark piece of legislation into a missed opportunity. Residents and providers are both clear that good quality supported housing is about much more than just a roof over someone’s head. Yet the national standards still do not fully reflect what drives recovery: purposeful activity, community, and flexibility of stay.

The two-year intended duration for transitional accommodation risks being read as a fixed ceiling rather than a guide. There is still no standardised methodology for local needs assessments, or a nationally set licence fee rate for providers to pay. And cost-cutting motivations could still permeate local licensing decisions, particularly with local authorities facing a continued subsidy loss when reclaiming Housing Benefit from national government for supported housing providers who are non-registered. These areas need addressing to achieve a fair, consistent, and person-centred system.

Another glaring omission is funding. With many supported housing providers already under financial pressure, layering new compliance burdens on a sector with no transitional support is a serious risk. Providers may be forced to divert resources away from frontline support simply to evidence that they are delivering frontline support.

On resident protection, the government has confirmed a three-month improvement period before licence refusal. This is welcome, but only half the six months organisations, including Emmaus UK, called for. Guidance will be issued on re-housing residents where schemes close, but guidance alone does not guarantee outcomes. For people who have experienced homelessness, the statutory rehousing duty may not apply. Without robust safeguards, licence refusal could lead to homelessness, which would be a tragic unintended consequence of the Act.

And none of this works without affordable homes for residents to move on to after supported housing: an average gap of £200 a month between local housing allowance and median private rents traps people in supported housing long after they are ready to leave, while we urgently need to work toward 90,000 social homes built per year.

The message from residents and providers is clear: we know what good quality supported housing looks like. The government has the foundations in place – now it needs to go further.

Paula Barker is the Labour MP for Liverpool Wavertree and Co-Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ending Homelessness