Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
As I said, that is an example. I am not wishing to make the point—[Interruption.] I have said quite clearly that you will disagree with me on that, but that is the point that I am making.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
Thank you, Sir Roger. Committee members have been fiercely disagreeing on something that relates directly to the matters that we are considering today on frankness and candour. I think that demonstrates just how challenging these things will be. We are the politicians who are putting forward this legislation.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
Absolutely. The Bill is focused on those examples that are clear and egregious, where it is easy to say that there has been a failure of candour or a deliberate attempt to cover up. The legislation will cover many other situations, however, including Members of Parliament. As Members of Parliament, we are expected to operate with a degree of frankness and candour, and yet just this week we have been fiercely debating whether one of our own has or has not done that. It is important for Members to reflect on the wideness of the ramifications outside the purely obvious examples of what might constitute candour, or a lack of it.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
Thank you for that further clarification, Sir Roger. These issues are absolutely live and happening all the time—this week alone, we have seen examples of it—and we need to understand the implications of the Bill. I am far from alone in recognising the difficulty in defining terms such as “candour” and “public interest”. John Coggon, professor of law at the University of Bristol law school, writes: “The public interest has no single, fixed definition. Even as a technical term of art its sense varies both for being context dependent and for being a question that may be settled by different sorts of institutional actor. It may, for instance, demand consideration of national security, national economic interest, protection of health, maintenance of a justice system, protection of fundamental rights. And determinations may be made by courts, politicians, legislators, executive agencies, and so on. Each can and will bring different forms and ranges of consideration to the process of determining what the public interest demands, and whether those demands are compelling.” Anyone who has spent any time inside a public body—a police force, a regulator or a Government Department—knows that the public interest can mean very different things to different people. It is shaped by context, role, circumstance and sometimes professional norms. What one official believes to be in the public interest, a Minister, senior civil servant or statutory body might see very differently. That is not mere theory; it is the daily reality of modern governance. Questions were raised during the evidence sessions about how the public interest might be used inappropriately in defence of an allegation of misconduct in public office. As new clause 2 points to, paragraph 1(8)(b) of schedule 1 specifically allows for the withholding of information in the public interest. Failing in that area could lead to both those we would wish not to be prosecuted being prosecuted and those we want to see prosecuted escaping justice. It is an important area of how the Bill will operate. I am not so ambitious as to suggest that through the Bill the Committee will be able to create a perfect definition of public interest, but I speak in support of the new clause in an attempt to ensure that the Government recognise that they need to properly engage with that issue if the Bill is to be successful. A definition of the public interest need not be exhaustive, as I have said, but the wide-ranging ramifications of the Bill place an onus on the Government to ensure that the frontline civil servant of any kind has somewhere to look and turn to when wrestling with these matters—a starting point that might help them to structure their thinking and make decisions. By failing to define the term at all, even in the most basic way, the Bill risks giving us a duty that is challenging to operate for a junior civil servant. It risks more uncertainty about compliance, inconsistency between institutions and even potential litigation where prosecutors or courts are left to decide after the fact what Parliament must have meant. The obvious challenging scenario is when officials need to consider situations where there are competing public interests—national security versus transparency, value for money versus speed of delivery, or personal privacy versus public accountability. Without more assistance for thinking those matters through, how does an official protect themselves from the—possibly criminal—allegation that their judgment call was not in the public interest among competing interests? The new clause does not attempt to dictate exactly what public interest must mean; it simply requires the Secretary of State to set out a structure or framework in regulations, subject to approval by both Houses. Ultimately, if this legislation is to achieve the cultural change that the Government claim it will, the foundations must be clear and easy to understand. Public officials should not be left purely guessing what Parliament might have meant, or how we expected them to weigh these issues—Parliament should tell them. New clause 2 offers the Government the opportunity to do exactly that, and I hope they will take it.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
The Minister rightly describes how tightly the courts consider these matters in detail. As the Bill puts a whole range of very junior civil servants in the firing line, does she at least accept that guidance or materials might be helpful to assist a broader audience in how they approach these issues in their day-to-day work?
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
I emphasise that we need clarity on this. Those of us who were able to attend the meeting with the intelligence services will know that they seemed to provide quite a clear account of their individual personal responsibility and all the ways in which they thought the Bill would affect them. That was quite clearly contradicted in our evidence from other witnesses. I am grateful to the Minister for sending round a further note to Committee members this morning, and for our brief chat ahead of this sitting. Even that note raises further contradictions, however, because it says, and I quote, that “the individual public officials working for the UK intelligence services are capable of being caught by the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour”. It lists some other ones, but it includes the duty of candour. Further down, it says, “the Bill specifies that the duty of candour and assistance can only be addressed to public authorities and not individual public officials”. The Minister was able to give me a brief, informal explanation of that, but I do think this is extremely important. It may be that people are happy for the security services to be excluded to a certain extent, but we have to vote on a shared understanding of what exactly the Bill does in relation to them as entire organisations, as well as to the people who work for them and those who are in charge. I would be grateful if the Minister provided some clarity on that.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
I beg to move amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 26, line 30, at end insert— “(1A) Inquiries under subsection (1) include those designated by the Secretary of State as local inquiries into grooming gangs.” This amendment would apply the Duty of Candour to the five local grooming gangs’ inquiries announced by the Government and any further ones established.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
I rise to speak to amendment 3, and I also welcome the intention behind amendment 1. Amendment 3 relates to the scope of the duty of candour as it applies to non-statutory inquiries. Members will know that the Bill does not just impose a duty of candour on public bodies in major statutory inquiries that are set up under the Inquiries Act 2005; it allows Ministers to apply that same duty to non-statutory inquiries—or inquiries that, for various sensible reasons, may not require the full statutory machinery but none the less investigate matters of profound public concern. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 sets out the conditions under which a non-statutory inquiry may fall within the Bill: it must be initiated by a Minister; it must be intended to produce a published report; and the Minister must certify that the events in question have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern. That is a broadly drawn but important framework. However, there is a real risk that some of the most sensitive, complex and deeply distressing inquiries currently being established will fall entirely outside this regime. I refer specifically to the local grooming gangs inquiries announced by the Government. These inquiries were promised to victims, survivors and affected communities as part of the commitment to shine a light on failures by public agencies over many decades to protect vulnerable children. They will be examining events that could not be more clearly connected to public concern and public confidence. Unless they are expressly captured by the Bill, however, the public bodies involved will not necessarily be subject to the statutory duty of candour that the Bill intends to deliver; it will be left to the whims of the Government of the day. Given the chequered history of this Administration, that is not a position that we would want to be left in, and it is not a position that many victims would want to be left in. The amendment is therefore designed to remove any doubt by making it clear that the non-statutory inquiries designated by the Secretary of State as local grooming gang inquiries fall squarely within paragraph 2. It is a simply, clarifying amendment that protects victims, the integrity of the process and the public from the possibility of these inquiries falling into a grey area. It is worth reminding the Committee why this matters. Across multiple towns and cities, victims were failed because agencies did not share information, confront uncomfortable truths and, in some cases, tell the public the full story. A duty of candour is not a mere formality in this context; it is an essential means by which we ensure that the same patterns of silence, defensiveness and institutional self-protection do not re-emerge. If the Bill’s purpose is to raise standards in public life, to restore trust and to ensure openness in the face of institutional wrongdoing, surely these inquires—the very ones where a failure of candour has had the most devastating impacts—must be included explicitly. The Government may well argue that the wording already allows these inquiries to be covered. If that is the case, there is no harm in making it clear. If it is not the case, there is every reason for us to fix that today. This amendment is not partisan. We heard from Mayor Burnham about his direct experience of a local grooming gang inquiry that lacked a duty of candour, and how he felt the inquiry would have benefited enormously from one. He supported our amendment to ensure that all other local inquiries would be subject to such a duty once the Bill became law. The timing may not be perfect, but given the speed with which the Government seek to proceed with the Bill, and the positive impact it could have even now if public officials knew that this was incoming, I cannot see any reason why the Government would oppose the measure. It is straightforward and would ensure that when victims and survivors are told that lessons will be learned, we will do everything possible to guarantee that that is done honestly, fully and transparently by ensuring that inquiries have all the information they need. Amendment 1—I believe this was touched on earlier, in relation to panels and what will fully constitute inclusion in the Bill—is helpful to ensure that when a Minister commissions one of these important panels, it is not simply left to them to decide whether it suits them to include the duty of candour. I therefore welcome that amendment.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
On amendment 1, I accept the Government’s intention to clarify further how these things will operate. On panels and non-statutory inquiries, although there is sometimes in Government a resistance to public inquiries for the wrong reasons, sometimes it is because they are expensive and time-consuming. The real opportunity for applying the duty of candour more widely is that if we can ensure that non-public inquiries get all the information they need, they are much more likely to be successful, thereby avoiding a future public inquiry with all the associated costs that lawyers make a huge amount of money from. On amendment 3, although the Minister outlined the future public inquiry, the local inquiries have not been cancelled. There is clearly a view that they must also proceed. I cannot see any reason why we would not want them to proceed on the basis that they are subject to the duty of candour.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
On that basis, the Minister should not have any objection to the amendment, because it would confirm that position more explicitly. We will therefore push it to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
I rise briefly to support the amendment and the points made by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. It is about not just existing contractual arrangements, but how there might be perverse incentives for people to create different structures if they think that, through contracting or subcontracting, they will escape the accountability under the Bill. I am keen to hear from the Minister. Probably the example that everyone has in mind is the Post Office scandal. That was a direct contractor, but it could have had subcontractors and so on. When the Post Office was conducting its private investigations, it might have used subcontractors to do some of those investigations. That would not be an unusual step for an organisation to take, so it is important that we get clarity on this issue.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
Another example of what we have been discussing this morning is Primodos and drug companies. Does the Minister expect drug companies to be captured as well?
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
Does the provision of treatment to an individual constitute an incident? That is what we have been talking about in relation to Primodos.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Perhaps the point the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills was making was that the Minister referred to a separate piece of legislation, the Public Records Act 1958, and I am not sure that that legislation includes things like contractors and subcontractors.
- Hansard source
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting)
I hope I can be of assistance. I think the clause is about the public authority’s obligation to explain to its employees all the things they can do to raise a concern. I do not think that it is directed at the individuals who might be required to do things. It might be better for it to say that the authority must ensure that that information is available. If we read it in the context of the public authority’s obligations, it is about what the authority should tell people, rather than placing any obligation in relation to individuals’ actions. I hope that might explain it more clearly.
- Hansard source
Criminal Court Reform
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the questioning, the Justice Secretary referred to the Victims’ Commissioner supporting these proposals. For the record, will he make it clear that, sadly, the Victims’ Commissioner passed away a number of weeks ago and cannot possibly have seen these proposals? He may have been referring to the incoming Victims’ Commissioner, who starts in January, but the statement she has released today makes no reference to the Justice Secretary’s proposals on changes to jury trials. I wonder if he might have inadvertently misled the House about that.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The Elections Act 2022 expanded the franchise to over 3 million British nationals living overseas. As MPs, we have a duty to represent those who have lived in our constituencies, but we do not know who they are or where they are. How can our embassies help?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
The hon. Lady is outlining an extensive programme of capital expenditure on the national health service. Between last year and this year, we have had the largest set of Budget increases in the history of this country, but are the Liberal Democrats proposing that we should tax the British public even further to pay for the kind of thing that she has just described?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
I will start on a positive note by commending the lines on productivity in the Red Book, and the recent comments that various Ministers have made about that. Productivity has to be the No. 1 objective in getting our NHS to where it needs to be to deliver for our constituents. I have to say to the Health Secretary that objectives two and three are probably dentistry and adult social care, and on those, I have heard less positive news. Dentistry in particular is still struggling as a result of the units of dental activity created by Gordon Brown back in the day—a system that has bedevilled the provision of dentistry in this country and is in urgent need of reform. Without that reform, we will make no progress at all on one of the principal issues in the health service that concern my constituents at the moment. I think that a degree of humility is important when we talk about the NHS, and I say that with all due respect to the Health Secretary, because otherwise he will be setting himself up for a fall. Reform in the NHS is fiendishly difficult, and we all remember the ghost of PFI, which still stalks the corridors of our hospitals and clinics and will do so for some time to come. The day before the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave her pre-Budget speech, her boss—the Prime Minister, no less—took the very unusual step of personally moving the Second Reading of a Bill. The Bill was admittedly a very important one indeed, and the Prime Minister might have thought, perfectly understandably, that it was too important to be delivered by his Justice Secretary. It was the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which begins its Committee stage today. At the heart of the Bill is a new duty of candour, and despite its name, it extends well beyond the holders of public office. It carries a legal obligation to act transparently, creates new criminal offences of misleading the public, and contains new codes of conduct based on the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, leadership and honesty, and it imposes appropriate sanctions. Lying is a very strong test, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you would call me out of order if I applied it to any right hon. or hon. Member, but this Government, through their Bill, are insisting on another test. They are insisting on a test of candour, and a duty of candour is a noble principle, but nobility cannot be confined to one area of the public realm; it has to be universally applicable, and it has to be applied from the top. Now, I am not accusing anyone of lying, but it should be abundantly clear that in preparing for this Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not approach her duties with the candour that she and her colleagues are demanding of others—which the public have a right to expect—and that is incorporated, in principle at least, in the Bill that the Prime Minister introduced on Second Reading just a few days ago. I suggest that before that Bill comes back to the Floor of the House, the Chancellor might like to reflect on the duty of candour as far as it applies to Ministers. I feel that a new clause that would make it more difficult for her and her successors to stray into the kind of shenanigans that we have seen over the past couple of months would be greatly welcomed by the House.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. What has unfolded since September reflects badly not just on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Prime Minister, or the Government, but on all of us. On 17 September, the OBR—
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The child nutrition fund is one of the most effective ways to enhance the impact and value for money of official development assistance spending by mobilising domestic resources, with philanthropic and private capital having the potential to multiply UK ODA contributions as much as sixfold. In 2023, the UK Government committed to a £16 million contribution to fund. Will Ministers confirm that the commitment will be honoured despite the changes in ODA spending?
- Hansard source
Criminal Court Reform
When the Secretary of State took office, he swore an oath of office, which reads: “I…do swear that…I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”. That last bit matters. Governments of his party, my party and—before they get too sanctimonious—the Liberal Democrats all starved the courts, from Blair to now. The Secretary of State has to put that right, because if he does not get sufficient extra sitting days, this problem will not be solved. When I say “sufficient extra”, I do not mean 1,000 days, or even 5,000 days; we need an increase of an order of magnitude. Instead, he is undermining a bulwark of our constitution. In the words of Lord Denning: “It has been the bulwark of our liberties too long for any of us to seek to alter it.” Why will the Secretary of State not go and have his argument with the Treasury and solve this problem properly?
- Hansard source
Point of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since 2017, Members’ hands have been tied when it comes to amending the Finance Bill because successive Governments have failed to include a general amendment of the law as the first resolution, which for centuries allowed unrestricted amendment of the Budget. For example, a Back-Bench amendment to the 1977 Finance Bill forced the Government to index income tax personal allowances against inflation—something that is topical now. That sort of change is much more difficult under the current arrangements. The Hansard Society and I have both written to the Chief Whip about this matter, but can you provide advice on how the House can ensure that in future years we can recover those fundamental rights that have been arrogated by the Government?
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman means to be discussing the Budget, not the Bill that is in Committee.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
Order. I call Marie Rimmer.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
Order. Mr Lavery, you will be aware that you have just called me an absolute disgrace with that phrase. I am taking it badly.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
Order. May I just point out that the hon. Member might like to withdraw the choice of word he used to describe the actions of the hon. Member for Clacton?
- Hansard source
Homelessness: Funding
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.
- Hansard source
Homelessness: Funding
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.
- Hansard source
Homelessness: Funding
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.
- Hansard source
Homelessness: Funding
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.
- Hansard source
Homelessness: Funding
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.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to nip out to my Delegated Legislation Committee without missing my spot. I met with businesses this morning, and it is clear that the people who take risks, invest, create jobs and drive tax receipts are busy scratching their heads to find some positive from this Budget. The truth is that it is a disaster for everyone in Mid Bedfordshire and right across the country—for young people looking for their first job, for hard-working families, and for aspirational business owners and job creators. Our country does need investment and renewal, but to pay for it, we need strong businesses and a strong business environment. The Chancellor is delivering the absolute opposite. Just like last year, she has launched a calculated assault on all our constituents; they are now paying the price for spiralling welfare and higher debt costs with their jobs, all to save the Chancellor’s own. The simple truth is that this Government are backing benefits Britain, not alarm clock Britain, and with broken promise after broken promise, the Chancellor is slipping into a black hole of her own making—one that cannot come quick enough for most of us.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
I think everybody in this House wants to bring children out of poverty. The way to do that is to get more families into jobs, so that they can afford to bring their children up and take responsibility. Conservative Members know that it is business that invests, creates jobs and grows our economy, which enables investment in our public infrastructure. The backbone of our economy includes our high streets. Labour Members may visit their local pubs and cafes and post on social media expressing how much they back their high street—even posting about visits to businesses that have since closed—but the truth is that they have been standing idly by while the Chancellor has thrown the local businesses they rely on and claim to champion under the bus. They did it last year; they will do it again this year when they vote this Budget through; and if the Chancellor comes back for more, as she will, they will do it again. Let us look at the damage being done to a typical high street pub in Bedfordshire. Charged £7,448 in business rates by the last Conservative Government, that figure increased after the last Budget to £24,309. While local authorities are yet to publish the charge for next year, after the three-yearly business rates revaluation and the abolition of retail, hospitality and leisure relief, the charge is likely to be around £45,000 when transitional relief ends. That is a whopping tax increase of roughly 500% over the course of this Parliament before a single penny has been taken in sales. That is an absolute disgrace. It is an attack on our ambitious small business owners—on our constituents who leap out of bed at the sound of their alarms, work hard, play by the rules and create jobs. Is it any wonder that many of them are now asking themselves, “What’s the point?” Business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses must be abolished, and that is exactly what a Conservative Government will do. Who is paying for the price for this Budget? It is the very working people whom this Government pretend to support, especially young people starting out as I did—washing dishes in the pub, waiting on tables and working in local shops. Labour Members pat themselves on their backs with smiles all around for increasing the minimum wage, but they are doing so while crushing jobs. It makes absolutely no sense to do this at a time when the market can least afford it. Unemployment is through the roof; some 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds are not in education, employment or training, and that number is rising. That is an absolute scandal that this Government’s economic plan does nothing to fix.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it makes it worse. The benefits of an increased minimum wage are meaningless for those who do not have a wage. We should be investing in a brighter future for young people, one of aspiration, hard work, investment and wealth. Only the Conservatives have a plan to do that, by bearing down on welfare spending, cutting taxes, and repealing every job-destroying, anti-business, anti-growth measure in the Employment Rights Bill. We will kick-start young people’s working lives with a £5,000 first jobs bonus.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
I have no time. We will back young people to buy their first home. We will not stifle the chances of a good job, punish people with higher taxes when they do find employment, push graduates into higher student loan repayments or make it harder to save for retirement, which is what this Government are doing. The appeal of fleeing socialist Britain has never been more obvious, nor has it ever been so easy, and the exodus has already begun.
- Hansard source
Budget Resolutions
Does the hon. Lady agree that while Labour in government pretends that it is the party of fairness, this Budget is deeply unfair to both her constituents and my own constituents?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Last month, the Government buckled under pressure about their lack of consultation with the Chagossian people on the shameful handover of sovereign British territory to Mauritius. If the process is genuinely intended to inform policy, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the views expressed to the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee are free from external interference? How will its findings inform the Government’s decision on the future of the Chagos islands?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I hope the Minister will check that there are actually Chagossians and not outsiders taking part in that consultation. Anyway, let us try something else. Given last week’s report that the Chancellor had a £4 billion surplus rather than a £20 billion deficit as previously suggested, will the Minister explain why the Government are pressing ahead with this eye-wateringly expensive £35 billion gift of British sovereign territory to Mauritius? Does the Minister not agree that scrapping that atrocious deal would be a better way to help the Chancellor restore fiscal credibility and save British taxpayers’ money?