Andy Burnham has insisted “names not numbers” will drive his mission to eradicate rough sleeping.
Hosting a summit on rough sleeping in Downing Street today, the Prime Minister insisted his plans to tackle homelessness across the country were “permanent”.
Article continues below
Addressing charities and local leaders, Mr Burnham said: “We had a mantra in Greater Manchester and today I’m making it the national mantra that underpins this collective drive.
“Names not numbers. That’s how you start to end homelessness. If you think about the name, the individual, the person right there in front of you – start there and then work from there. We know that everything is possible when government works on that principle. That’s what will guide us.”
It came as he announced a doubling in funding – to £874million – behind his pledge to offer every rough sleeper a bed this Christmas. According to the most recent figures, an estimated 4,793 people were sleeping rough on a single night in autumn 2025 in England.
One person who attended the six-hour long summit on Monday told The Mirror it was clear the issue “gets under [the Prime Minister’s] skin” and praised the political capital being spent on homelessness.
But they said the issue of the housing benefit freeze was “definitely raised” during the day by charities as the number one thing that could make a “massive difference” at the Budget.
Article continues below
Local Housing Rates (LHR) set the amount of housing benefit private renters can receive but freezes have resulted in the benefit failing to keep up with the soaring costs of local rents. During his time as Greater Manchester Mayor, Mr Burnham said ending the freeze would make a real difference in preventing homelessness.
Earlier, the Prime Minister also visited homeless charity St Martin-in-the-fields in central London where he met with people experiencing homelessness and spoke to frontline workers about conditions on the street.
He also defended his record on tackling homelessness while mayor of Greater Manchester, saying figures “came right down” but the system faltered when people started travelling to the area to take advantage of the offer of a bed.
Appearing alongside Chancellor John Healey he suggested that his nationwide scheme will be more effective. Asked about the Conservatives’ criticism of his record, he told broadcasters: “They are wrong about that because I had a 10-year drive called a bed every night, and if people look at the figures, it came right down.
“The issue was we were the only area that was offering a bed every night, so obviously people travelled to Greater Manchester. It’s clear to me that it only works if everywhere does it.”
After Downing Street unveiled the extra cash to fund the mission to tackle rough sleeping, Lord John Bird, the founder of the Big Issue, said: “Andy Burnham is the first Prime Minister in the thirty-five-year history of the Big Issue to put ending rough sleeping at the very forefront of his plans.
Article continues below
“His record investment in his first 100 days has far outstripped his predecessors, and he should be commended for that. But throwing money at homelessness will never be enough on its own. Now comes the hard part — turning ambition into action, and making sure this action sustains and endures. As the nights draw in, it’s time to see if he can make good on his promise.”
Andy Burnham Insists ‘Names Not Numbers’ Will Drive Mission to End Rough Sleeping
Andy Burnham has placed the human impact of homelessness at the centre of a renewed debate about how Britain should tackle rough sleeping, with the principle of “names not numbers” highlighting the importance of treating people without secure housing as individuals rather than statistics.
The phrase captures a growing argument about the way governments measure social problems. Official figures can reveal the scale of homelessness, help identify trends and guide the allocation of resources. Yet behind every figure is a person whose circumstances may involve poverty, family breakdown, unemployment, mental health difficulties, addiction or the loss of a stable home.
Burnham’s reported emphasis on individual lives reflects the challenge facing local authorities and homelessness organisations: how to move beyond emergency responses and help people find safe, sustainable accommodation.
The exact details of the initiative associated with his remarks require confirmation, including its funding, targets and implementation arrangements. Nevertheless, the wider issue is significant. Rough sleeping remains one of the most visible signs of housing insecurity, and addressing it requires more than simply counting the people found on the streets.
Why ‘Names Not Numbers’ Matters
The principle of “names not numbers” places personal circumstances at the centre of public policy. Rather than viewing rough sleepers as a single group, it encourages services to understand the individual barriers preventing each person from finding and keeping a home.
One person may have lost accommodation following the breakdown of a relationship. Another may have left an institution without suitable housing, while someone else may be struggling with long-term illness, debt or difficulties accessing support.
These circumstances require different responses. Providing emergency shelter can be essential, but it may not resolve the problems that led to homelessness in the first place.
For some people, the immediate priority is securing a safe place to sleep. Others may need help obtaining identification documents, accessing benefits, arranging medical treatment or reconnecting with family where appropriate. Long-term support may also be necessary to prevent a return to the streets.
A personalised approach seeks to coordinate these services around the needs of the individual.
However, recognising people as individuals does not mean abandoning statistical measurement. Reliable data remains necessary to understand how widespread rough sleeping is, identify areas where the problem is worsening and determine whether public spending is achieving meaningful results.
The strongest approach combines accurate statistics with an understanding of the people represented by them.
The Scale of Britain’s Homelessness Challenge
Rough sleeping is only one part of the wider homelessness problem. People living in temporary accommodation, staying with friends because they have nowhere permanent to live or moving repeatedly between unsuitable places may also experience serious housing insecurity.
These situations can be less visible than sleeping on a pavement or in a doorway, but they can have equally disruptive effects on people’s lives.
The distinction matters because a reduction in the number of people visibly sleeping outdoors would not necessarily mean that homelessness had been eliminated. Some individuals may have moved into temporary accommodation without securing a permanent home, while others may have shifted between different forms of housing insecurity.
Local authorities therefore need to monitor a range of indicators, including rough sleeping, temporary accommodation demand, the availability of affordable housing and the number of people returning to homelessness after receiving support.
For policymakers, the objective should be to help people obtain stable homes, not merely to make homelessness less visible.
Burnham’s Regional Leadership and the Housing Debate
As mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham has a regional role in discussions about housing, transport, public services and economic development. The region includes communities with different housing markets, employment opportunities and levels of demand for support.
A regional approach can help bring together local authorities, housing providers, charities and health services. This is particularly important because homelessness rarely fits neatly within the boundaries of a single department or organisation.
Someone sleeping rough may need assistance from several services at the same time. If those organisations operate independently, people can be required to repeat their circumstances, navigate complicated application processes or wait for one service to act before another can provide help.
Coordinated support can reduce these obstacles by establishing clearer responsibilities and ensuring that people are directed towards the services they need.
However, the mayor’s role should not be confused with the responsibilities of the UK Government or individual councils. Funding arrangements, housing legislation, local authority duties and the availability of social housing all influence what can be achieved.
Any initiative described as part of Burnham’s mission would need to be assessed against the powers, resources and commitments actually available to the organisations involved.
Why Counting Rough Sleepers Is Not Enough
Statistics are indispensable for planning public services, but they have limitations. A count taken on a particular night may not capture everyone who sleeps rough during the course of a year. People may move between locations, stay temporarily with acquaintances or avoid contact with authorities.
Different measurement methods can also produce different results. A street count, an outreach team’s records and administrative data from housing services may describe overlapping but distinct populations.
This makes it important for authorities to explain how figures are collected and what they can reasonably demonstrate.
The “names not numbers” principle adds another dimension by emphasising that a person should not disappear from consideration simply because their circumstances are difficult to measure.
For example, someone who moves from a public space into temporary accommodation may no longer appear in a rough-sleeping count. That is an important change, but the person’s long-term housing situation remains unresolved until they have a safe and suitable place to live.
Successful programmes should therefore measure not only how many people are contacted or moved indoors, but also how many obtain stable accommodation and remain housed over time.
Prevention Is as Important as Emergency Support
Preventing homelessness can be more effective than waiting until someone is sleeping rough before offering assistance.
Early intervention may involve helping people who are at risk of eviction, resolving rent arrears, providing advice during relationship breakdowns or ensuring that people leaving hospitals, prisons and care institutions have suitable accommodation arrangements.
The earlier these problems are identified, the more options may be available to prevent someone from losing their home.
Prevention also requires attention to the wider housing market. When rents rise faster than incomes, affordable accommodation becomes harder to secure. A shortage of social housing can leave people with few alternatives when private tenancies end or personal circumstances change.
Emergency accommodation remains essential, but it cannot replace a sufficient supply of suitable long-term homes.
Local authorities and housing organisations therefore face a dual challenge: responding quickly to people already sleeping rough while reducing the number who become homeless in the first place.
Mental Health, Addiction and Access to Services
Some people experiencing rough sleeping face overlapping difficulties involving mental health, substance dependence, physical illness or previous trauma. These circumstances can make it harder to navigate administrative systems, maintain appointments or secure accommodation without ongoing support.
It is important not to assume that every rough sleeper has the same difficulties. Homelessness affects people from different backgrounds, and the reasons behind it vary considerably.
Where health problems are present, housing and healthcare services need to work together. Treatment may be difficult to sustain when someone has nowhere safe to sleep, while a person recovering from illness may struggle to maintain a tenancy without suitable support.
This is one reason housing-led approaches have attracted attention. Rather than requiring every underlying problem to be resolved before accommodation is offered, such approaches seek to establish stable housing while arranging the additional services a person needs.
The effectiveness of any programme depends on the availability of suitable homes, trained staff and sustained funding. A personalised promise cannot succeed if the practical support required to deliver it is missing.
Funding and Accountability Will Determine the Results
A commitment to end rough sleeping raises an important question: how will success be measured?
Authorities need clear objectives, reliable information and transparent reporting. These should include the number of people helped into accommodation, how quickly support is provided, whether tenancies are sustained and how many people return to sleeping rough.
Funding also matters. Outreach teams, emergency accommodation, mental health services and housing support require staff and resources. Short-term projects may provide immediate relief, but lasting improvements can be difficult to maintain if services cannot plan beyond a limited funding period.
Local authorities must also manage competing demands on their budgets. Homelessness services operate alongside other essential responsibilities, including social care, education and public health.
A credible strategy therefore needs to explain not only what it hopes to achieve, but also how the work will be financed, which organisations will be responsible and how progress will be independently assessed.
The “names not numbers” message will have practical meaning only if it leads to changes in how people receive assistance and whether those changes produce lasting outcomes.
What Success Would Look Like
Ending rough sleeping is an ambitious objective, and its meaning needs to be clearly defined. It could involve eliminating people sleeping outdoors in a particular area, ensuring that episodes of rough sleeping are rare and brief, or establishing systems that prevent people from remaining on the streets for extended periods.
Each objective requires measurable standards and consistent reporting.
Success would mean that people in crisis can access emergency accommodation promptly, that suitable permanent homes are available and that support continues when individuals face difficulties maintaining a tenancy.
It would also mean that people are treated with dignity throughout the process. Outreach workers need to build trust, listen to individual circumstances and avoid assuming that a single intervention will work for everyone.
For residents and businesses, reducing rough sleeping may also improve the use and safety of public spaces. But any response must balance those concerns with the rights and needs of people experiencing homelessness.
Moving people from one street to another without resolving their housing situation would not amount to a lasting solution.
A Mission That Must Be Judged by Outcomes
Burnham’s reported emphasis on “names not numbers” captures an important principle: public policy should recognise the people behind the statistics. Homelessness cannot be solved through data collection alone, nor can it be addressed by compassionate language without practical action.
The task requires coordinated services, sufficient housing, early intervention and sustained support for people whose circumstances make it difficult to secure a stable home.
Reliable statistics will remain essential, but they should be used to guide assistance rather than replace an understanding of individual needs.
Ultimately, the test of any rough-sleeping initiative will be straightforward. Are fewer people forced to sleep outdoors? Are those who do receive help quickly? And are they able to move into secure accommodation and remain there?
If the “names not numbers” approach produces measurable progress on those questions, it could offer a meaningful framework for tackling homelessness. If it remains only a slogan, the people it is intended to help will continue to face the same uncertainty.
The real measure of success is not how dramatically a policy is announced, but whether it helps people move from the streets into safe, stable homes and gives them a realistic chance to rebuild their lives.