The Government has overhauled the way in which the number of rough sleepers is counted in order to more accurately show the reality of what is happening around the country. The new figures show that on average 1,768 people sleep rough each night, compared to 440 under the old system.
The big increase is due to every council taking part in the new counting measure. Previously figures were only gathered from areas considered hotspots for rough sleeping. In addition, the figures are now verified by the umbrella group Homeless Link rather than relying on government officials.
Further details have also been published of how the £100m pledged to tackle homelessness will be spent, with just under a fifth (£18.5m) going to the voluntary sector. The package includes £8m to Crisis over the next 2 years, £3.4m for the National Homelessness Advice Service run by Shelter and the Citizens Advice Bureau and £150,000 to UK Refuges Online which helps tackle domestic violence, a factor in many cases of homelessness.
Communities Minister Andrew Stunell said of the announcement,
Homelessness is a very real and worrying problem in our country. Labour’s counting system was deeply flawed, and thanks to the changes made by the coalition, we now have a count that reflects the reality on the streets. Knowing how many rough sleepers there actually are on our streets is a vital first step in deciding how best to deal with the problem.
Charities play a key role in providing shelter, food and support to those who find themselves sleeping on the streets.
This package of funding will provide key support to the voluntary sector to allow these charities to continue to do their impressive work in tackling the problem of homelessness that blights too many lives in our country.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Llandow, 1950: The worst air disaster the world had seen
Electoral Calculus's local election predictions
Are memories like a row of telegraph poles?
Dundee - designing resilience into a fragile urban landscape
Potential job losses multiply from NHS England
tom arms
Simon R
Alan Jelfs
Peter Hirst
12 Comments
Sorry to go off thread Mark – and perhaps this is the topic for another posting by you or a colleague – but David Cameron’s article in yesterday’s Telegraph ushering in potential wholesale privatisation of public services was an absolute bombshell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/8337239/How-we-will-release-the-grip-of-state-control.html
What on earth is going on? This is a hugely important announcement and seems to be a massive lurch to the right.
We need a Lib Dem viewpoint on this pretty sharpish. It seems like the Tory right are mounting a free market jihad right under our noses. While we are occupied with electoral reform, they are about to lay waste to what remains of the public sector.
Back on the subject of homelessness, it has always been a mystery to me why the state spends so much money on subsidising private landlords in providing frequently substandard accommodation by offering housing benefit instead of diverting the same money into building affordable rented housing, which would be a public asset for the future. Has anyone got an explanation for this?
Robert: So the state will lose its monopoly of service delivery, and “we will also create a new presumption that services should be delivered at the lowest possible level”. How is either of those incompatible with liberal philosophy?
The problem is far greater than even the new figures indicate -mainly the need for safe hostel accommodation – many prefer to sleep rough to going to hostels were alcohol and drugs create great difficulties. There are many organisations helping out on rough sleeping – they would welcome additional support. How much consultation has there been with these organisations ?
@ MBoy
Where can you say that private sector delivery of public services has been in any way satisfactory? Where it is more competitive on price, it has shown consistently to be based on lower salaries for workers and attempts to lower standards of service delivered. e.g. hospital cleaning, buses etc.
What guarantee is there that the private sector will be made to bid on a totally equal basis? In the health sector, where is the guarantee, for instance, that it will be forced to handle difficult medical cases, not just the simple ones?
Really, this seems to be flying totally in the face of the vast accumulation of evidence that where the private sector is involved in delivering public services, the profit motive wins out over all other considerations.
I would love you to provide some examples where this is not the case. I don’t think you will be able to.
Robert C: how would you classify GPs? They are not employed by the state, but rather are either self-employed or run a GP ‘business’ with others. In that sense they have been (ever since the NHS was created) a private provider to a public health system.
The role of GPs has not always been flawless, by any means, but presumably the logic of your view (“Where can you say that private sector delivery of public services has been in any way satisfactory?”) is that you’ve always thought GPs should be nationalised and brought onto the state payroll, is that right – or are you defining “private sector delivery” in a different way?
@ Mark
GPs operate pretty much within the NHS system and while in theory they are independent, in practice they are highly dependent and interwoven with the NHS. While they are very well paid (some would say too well paid), making a profit is not their prime motivation. In the large majority of cases GPs’ priority is the care and well being of their patients. Both my parents worked as GPs, so I feel I know at least something about what kind of motivations they have from first hand experience.
It is not even remotely possible to compare individual GPs or small groups of doctors with large profit-led corporations to which we have already entrusted large areas of public services – often with disastrous results. Just look at the impact of privatisation on hospital cleaning, school meals, railways and public construction projects (PFIs).
In almost all cases, the theoretical gains through increased private sector efficiency are vastly overstated in relation to deteriorating staff pay and conditions, lowered standards, the massive costs of contract negotiation and enforcement and the implicit guarantee given to private providers of public services should they go under financially.
Robert C: I agree GPs on the one hand and a large private firm on the other are very different. But what about, say, a small not-for-profit company. Would you classify letting them be a provider of public services in the same way as a (to use your term) “large profit-led corporation”? If you do, then it’d be interesting to know why – and if not, then presumably there are some alternative suppliers of public services that you would find acceptable?
The ability to count accurately the relative numbers of `rough sleepers’ is clearly the duty of any caring Liberal.
I agree with presumption made that the numbers are still under estimated and include ex-service personnel.
The work of the Salvation Army,Citizens Advice Bureaux and the many eminent charities run by churches and voluntary organisations should all be interviewed for their expertise.Then all should be involved in the future practical programmes to provide the max help to `rough sleepers’ and vulnerable persons threatened with homelessness.
Thank God the government has reformed the figures on Homelessness. The previous government’s methodology seemed willfully designed to deliberately undercount the number of homeless. Accurate information is the 1st step to resolving a problem. Good for the Coalition!
@ Mark
Not for profit and mutual organisations are completely fine by me. Their motivations are aligned differently to those of large, profit led corporations. In healthcare, for instance, why would it not be possible to be a member of a regulated mutual healthcare organisation to which you pay insurance fees instead of a portion of your tax? No more monolithic state, the possibility of competition, organisations responsible to their membership. (In my wildest dreams, I even imagine a mutually owned rail network, owned by its passengers – but that’s probably taking it too far.)
THESE are the kind of things I want as a Lib Dem. However, Cameron’s article was redolent of a very different agenda: a polarised view of the world where the antithesis of all controlling state is private enterprise and charity. While he may talk about not for profit organisations in the same breath, I firmly believe that as far as the Tories are concerned, this is just window dressing. It is up to us as Lib Dems to really nail into place the detail on this one, otherwise we will end up with a monstrous campaign of money-grabbing privatisation not a joyous spread of non-profit motivated public service.
To return to thread, I think this kind of initiative on homelessness will prove to our critics that the accusations that we have suddenly turned into an annexe of the ‘nasty party’ are completely baseless. It is by policing the boundaries rigorously to see that detail like this is implemented that we will make the coalition work. That is why I am so keen to make sure that the Tories don’t push through measures on important areas like health and economic policy that fall neatly into the box marked ‘Thatcherite’.
It can only be a matter of time before Labour starts complaining about the growth of rough sleepers under the Coalition …..
Robert: In that case, I think there’s quite a lot we agree on, even if not quite all 🙂