Andy Burnham calls on Starmer to tackle ‘explosion of homelessness'
The Greater Manchester mayor piled pressure on the prime minister to follow the success of the region offering housing to the homeless.
'If you set people up to succeed – they largely do,' Mr Burnham said. He added: 'Tackling homelessness is not just an economic imperative, but also a moral mission.'
Mr Burnham's calls came as a report by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) warned of an 'explosion in homelessness' following the pandemic.
It found a 94 per cent increase in rough sleeping since Covid, with around 47,000 people sleeping on the streets in England in the last year.
The CSJ warned rough sleeping is 'just the tip of the iceberg', with councils across the country spending billions on temporary accommodation and being pushed to the brink of bankruptcy.
Labour's manifesto promised to 'put Britain back on track to ending homelessness' after saying progress tackling the crisis was undone under the Conservatives.
It committed to working with mayors and councils across the country on a strategy to end rough sleeping.
The CSJ called on Labour to adopt a so-called Housing First approach similar to Greater Manchester's, which provides the homeless with immediate, unconditional access to permanent housing and ongoing support.
'Housing First has been shown to be the most effective and well-evidenced intervention to end homelessness for Britain's most disadvantaged and entrenched rough sleepers,' the report said.
It found that Housing First is three and a half times more effective than conventional homelessness services, with 84 per cent of users sustaining long-term housing after three years in the programme.
Rolling out Housing First across England would take 5,571 people off the streets by 2029/30, around a tenth of all rough sleepers.
And the CSJ said it is 'excellent value for money', with every £1 spent freeing up £2 in temporary accommodation and other costs.
CSJ chief executive Andy Cook said: 'Housing First has emerged as one of the most effective approaches to ending rough sleeping. Angela Rayner now has a unique opportunity to champion a national rollout which would be a gamechanger in the fight to end rough sleeping.'
And Liverpool mayor Steve Rotheram, whose region has also trialled Housing First, said: 'We've proven it works. Now we need to match that with ambition, and make it the foundation of a national mission to end homelessness for good.'
And the Steve Morgan Foundation, which supports charities, said Housing First had been 'transformative' and 'it is now time for the government to take this success to the rest of England'.
Chairman Steve Morgan said: 'I know firsthand the importance of a stable home. Without one, nothing else in life works, not your health, not your relationships, and not your ability to find or keep a job. That's why I believe Housing First holds the key to tackling rough sleeping in England.'
A Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: 'We are taking urgent and decisive action to end homelessness, fix the foundations of local government and drive forward our Plan for Change.
'We are providing £1bn for crucial homelessness and rough sleeping services including funding for Housing First and other forms of accommodation for people who sleep rough.
'This is alongside tackling the root causes by building 1.5 million new homes, abolishing section 21 no fault evictions and boosting social and affordable housing – backed by £39bn investment.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
26 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: Scotland's tax system isn't to blame for state of economy
David Lonsdale of the Scottish Retail Consortium has called on the Scottish Government to reduce business rates Underinvestment, inequality and political drift are the big problems for Scotland's economy, says reader Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Blaming Scotland's modestly more progressive tax system for UK-wide economic stagnation is a red herring. The reality is that our economic woes are driven by long-term underinvestment, inequality, and political drift, not by slightly higher taxes on top earners in Scotland. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In fact, compared to many similar countries, including those we often admire – like Germany or the Nordic nations – Scotland's personal tax rates remain lower. People in these countries often pay more in tax, while enjoying more disposable income overall because strong social infrastructure, like cheaper childcare and housing, reduce everyday costs. This in turn creates the basis for a dynamic economy, with thriving businesses and higher standards of living for most people. Fair taxation isn't the problem; it's part of the solution, alongside smarter public spending. Scotland's slightly fairer system is already raising hundreds of millions more to invest in public services and fund crucial payments to help lift children out of poverty. But there's still work to do. Council Tax is embarrassingly stuck in the 90s and deeply unfair. It's time to scrap it and bring in a fairer, modern system that taxes properties based on what they're actually worth. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We also need action on pollution-spewing private jets; the Scottish Parliament has had the power to tax them since 2017. It's time to use it. And business rates are ripe for reform: not because businesses pay more than in England, but because the system should reward employers who do the right thing, like paying the Living Wage and cutting pollution. The Laffer Curve gets wheeled out as a warning, but the joke's on us. Other countries are laughing because they've worked it out: fair taxes, strong public services, and a thriving economy can go hand in hand. It's time Scotland did too. Lewis Ryder-Jones, Oxfam Scotland, Edinburgh Failures forward 'Free' is a word used by Alan Woodcock (Letters, 19 July) no less than six times in efforts to defend nearly two decades of profligate SNP failure, along with this party's shameless promotion of an unaffordable dependency culture. Mr Woodcock exhaustively lists 'Free tuition, free prescriptions, the Scottish Child Payment, free bus travel' etc. The Scottish Government is very good at giving away cash but haven't a clue how to generate the revenue needed for all these handouts. Without the Barnett Formula, such generosity would have to be financed through draconian taxation, savage cutbacks to other areas of state expenditure and/or frightening levels of unsustainable borrowing. Nationalist economic strategies consist of building highly subsidised, inefficient wind turbines while at the same time discouraging growth by penalising those very entrepreneurs who create most of our wealth in the first place. Separatists blame others for their lengthy catalogue of costly, abandoned projects such as Highly Protected Marine Areas, the deposit return and named person schemes, the Gender Recognition Bill and a petty, botched attempt to absorb British Transport Police north of the Border into Police Scotland. Not to mention the continuing ferry fiasco, a topic which our self-styled freedom fighters are noticeably reluctant to talk about. Martin O'Gorman, Edinburgh Spend on peace George Robertson's sabre-rattling call for increased defence spending ('Britain and its people 'not safe', warns ex-Nato chief', 19 July) must have been music to the ears of arms manufacturers and traders. It rivalled some of the most paranoid utterances of Conservative MPs during the Cold War. For decades we were told we needed to spend massive amounts on a nuclear deterrent to keep us safe. Now it appears that this was not true after all, and that we need massive spending on conventional armaments as well. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Let us be clear: any armed conflict between the UK and Russia or China would lead to incalculable casualties on all sides. Everyone involved would end up in an impoverished and broken society. We have only one planet and we need to find ways to share it in peace. There is no future in policing the world by demonising other states and fuelling an arms race. The scale of resources George Robertson wants to give to arms companies should instead be used to build mechanisms of international co-operation that would incentivise states financially to pursue their legitimate political and security interests within a multilateral framework. We have much to learn from the wisdom of those who rebuilt the world after 1945. Nigel Lindsay, Bo'ness, West Lothian Best defence Former Nato boss Lord Robertson's claim that the UK is 'not safe' (Editorial, 19 July) is no different from Britain's unpreparedness pre-World War Two. Even during the Battle of Britain in 1940 Moffat-born Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding lamented the lack of pilots, which he thought might cause Britain to lose and be invaded. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad According to Robertson we lack 'the ammunition, the training, the people, the spare parts, the logistics and we don't have the medical capacity...'. Given that Prime Minister Keir Starmer's number one priority is to keep Britain 'safe and secure', he has a long way to go. The Strategic Defence Review, co-authored by Robertson, emphasised more drones, equipment replenishment and AI complementing artillery are apparently learnings from the war in Ukraine. Surely the main lesson, however, is missile defence, given Russia's success in destroying key infrastructure and causing devastation to Ukrainian people. Recently Patriot missiles were promised as priority by Donald Trump to Vlodomeyer Zelensky. The Israeli Iron Dome system has proven largely successful against Iranian drones and ballistic missiles. The UK is wide open to such attack and has little defence against Russian hypersonic ballistic missiles. Instead of seeking 'war fighting readiness' the UK Government should be ensuring its citizens are kept 'safe and secure' through world leading cybersecurity, development of a missile defence shield and safeguarding of pipelines and cables. Given stretched resources, equipment and expertise should be concentrated in such niche areas rather than an extra £15 billion on nuclear warheads when missiles from our submarines fail on testing. Scotland has long led innovation in defence through niche technologies and would stand to benefit in the development anti-missile systems and defence cybersecurity. Neil Anderson, Edinburgh Look homeward With Holyrood elections not too far off, First Minister John Swinney appears to be an incredibly desperate figure. In an attempt to stop nationalists deserting the SNP for Alba and the Greens he tries to present his party as the natural choice for independence supporters while swiftly glossing over the SNP's long-running failure to hold a second referendum, let alone win one. Overseas conflicts are always a useful way for governments to distract voters from domestic policy failure, and so Swinney, even though foreign affairs are wholly reserved to Westminster, endlessly pontificates about the Middle Eastern conflict. Yet it seems few voters are fooled, preferring that he and his party focus on their domestic remit and effectively address, despite the efforts of front-line professionals, systemic failings in the NHS, our schools and transport. Martin Redfern, Melrose, Roxburghshire Bad friends Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It seems that to wear a T-shirt of an organisation that campaigns against genocide makes one terrorist in the eyes of the UK Government. But the same government arms and stands 'shoulder to shoulder' with a regime that has killed over 40,000 civilians and has starved and rendered homeless the survivors. This is a disgraceful perversion of values and priorities, but no more than we have come to expect from the British state. If any more reason for Scotland to free herself from the UK was needed, surely this us it . David Currie, Tarland, Aberdeenshire Principles devalued After a mere year in office, Labour is looking ever less electable, trailing Reform UK in the opinion polls. While Keir Starmer flourishes abroad, his popularity ratings at home are plummeting, even within his own party. The main complaint is that the Cabinet members are not listening to their backbenchers. Rather, they are inclined to suspend them at the slightest provocation. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Only last week four MPs, including, Scot Brian Leishman, had the whip withdrawn for nothing more culpable than backing Labour principles. Gone are the days of open and frank discussion and principled agreement to differ on questions like the two-child cap and Welfare Reform, among other things. Nothing reveals more that this Labour government is on the wrong side of history than their shameful treatment of Diane Abbott. Lauded by Keir Starmer as a 'trailblazer' on becoming 'mother of the House', in the next breath, the excellent constituency MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington for 38 years has been suspended for stating the obvious on the question of race. Like Jeremy Corbyn and John O'Donnell before her, she could well stand as an Independent candidate at the next general election, assured of a stonking majority. She deserves no better, for that rare thing, principles. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh Write to The Scotsman
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Even the Tories now admit that our electoral system is toxic. When will Labour have the guts to fix it?
'Gerrymandering!' cry those on the right. But the government's plan for voting reform, which will allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in the next general election, isn't to Labour's advantage. Voters of this age are unlikely to favour the incumbent government they have grown up with. Though lowering the voting age was a manifesto promise, real electoral reform was nowhere in the manifesto. Real reform would mean abolishing the broken, discredited, untrusted and unsafe first-past-the-post system. Keir Starmer often promises to put country before party. But as this year's British Social Attitudes survey found, only 12% of people trust governments to put the country's interest before their own party's. Labour can prove them wrong by fixing a fragile democracy in grave danger. It needs moral nerve to admit the system that elected it – allowing Labour to win 64% of seats with just 34% of votes – lacks legitimacy. In the words of the Electoral Reform Society, the 2024 result was 'not only the most disproportional election in British electoral history, but one of the most disproportional seen anywhere in the world'. The next election threatens to be far worse, when a vote below 30% could produce an unwanted winner as five or six parties get crushed into a two-party system. Voters know they need a louder voice: for the first time, 60% of them – including 52% of Conservative voters – support the introduction of proportional representation (PR), according to polling last month. Electoral reform could be their only salvation. This seismic shift in public attitudes has prompted some surprising shifts. Robert Colvile, head of the Centre for Policy Studies, the thinktank founded by Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph, writes in the Sunday Times: 'I've always hated PR … partly because its strongest supporters tend to be the kind of muesli-eating sandal-wearers who have never had a correct opinion in their lives.' But he adds: 'Cracks … have been appearing in my implacable dislike,' before concluding that electoral reform is something 'we really need' to do. Meanwhile, on the Conservative Home website, the former MP and Tory grandee Nigel Evans, after years of adamantly opposing reforms to the first-past-the-post system, now warns against 'sleepwalking' into 'a huge majority for one party but no real mandate'. He is calling for a royal commission to review the British voting system. Nigel Farage may become the outlier. He has always hammered first past the post for killing off new parties – despite winning 14% of votes in last year's election, Reform UK secured only five MPs. On the morning after the vote, Farage blasted: 'Our outdated first-past-the-post electoral system is not fit for purpose and we will campaign with anyone and everyone to change this election system.' But in May's council elections, Reform's 32% vote share was rewarded with 41% of the council seats up for grabs. The party also gained control of 10 councils. Now leading in the polls, Farage has spoken of an 'inversion point' at which first past the post 'becomes your friend'. He reckons Reform may be at that point. Expect him to now go silent on the issue (unless his ratings drop and he clambers back on to the campaign for proportional representation). As for Labour, its 2022 conference passed a non-binding motion to introduce PR in its first term. Alan Renwick, a UCL professor and deputy director of the Constitution Unit, warns that it's virtually unknown anywhere in the world for a governing party to introduce reforms against its own interests. But times have changed: Labour could regain trust with a country-not-party stand to prevent the perverse results it benefited from last time. The risks ahead are unprecedented. The psephologist and former YouGov president Peter Kellner has written in a number of excellent blogs that 'the prospect of a democratic disaster is real'. He was no electoral reformer – until now. Changing the voting system to prevent a Farage win could look like dirty politics. But here's what has changed. Kellner's historical analysis shows that British elections have always ended up with the government more people chose, even where results appeared contrary. Labour wasn't loved, but throwing out the Tories was the priority shared among most voters. Should Farage become prime minister, Kellner writes, 'for the first time in living memory, the country is likely to have a government that most people really don't want'. Reform scores first as the party that voters would never support. Farage is the leader whom most people want the least. Starmer is preferred by 44% of people when set against Farage, with the Reform leader backed by 29%. Yet despite Farage's unprecedented unpopularity, he could become prime minister with a 29% share of the vote. At this crisis point, it would be an unforgivable dereliction of duty should Labour fail to act. A proportional system gives fair seats for fair votes: there's no need to delve into the complicated mathematical formula of the de Hondt method to prove that. Kellner calls for the simplest safeguard against the most unpopular choice winning, the alternative vote, which is not a form of proportional representation but how all parties select leaders and candidates. Instead of marking an 'X' next to their preferred candidate, voters rank candidates in order. If none of them top 50%, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes are reassigned according to the second preferences expressed on the ballot papers. The process continues until one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote and, as the least hated, is declared the winner. Labour would have won the last election using this voting system, but not with a landslide. Alternative voting can be introduced instantly and doesn't ask MPs to vote for a system that would put their seats in jeopardy. Politically, it discourages extremism, because every party seeks other parties' second preferences. Kellner would introduce it now with a referendum only after people had tried it at the next election. Labour has the muscle, but does it dare act? The 2011 referendum on alternative voting was a fiasco, in which Dominic Cummings cut his Brexit teeth with a campaign of breathtaking mendacity. The government would certainly get overwhelming support for a royal commission consulting widely and reporting fast. They must act now, before our broken system causes a democratic calamity. Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Miliband: I'll stop noise rules blocking heat pumps
Ed Miliband has vowed to stop noise rules from blocking heat pumps as he campaigns for the devices to be installed across Britain. The Energy Secretary has promised to investigate how regulations are enforced and to relax the rules if needed, saying noise issues 'remains a big barrier' to heat pump installations. Mr Miliband said: 'We're going to look at that, as to whether this is about the rules and the way they are being enforced and the knowledge of the rules. 'Often what I find on some of these planning issues, sometimes it's the rules, sometimes it's the enforcement of the rules and sometimes it's the awareness of the rules – and you've got to work out which it is. 'My overall approach would be to say where there are barriers, let's get rid of them if we possibly can. If the noise thing is a barrier, obviously subject to making sure there isn't a disturbance to people, which I don't think there will be, we should act on that.' Mr Miliband was addressing Bill Esterson, chair of the energy security and net zero committee, who said one in three heat pump installations required planning consent even in cases where the machines were producing noise comparable to a computer. The Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS), which sets planning standards for the devices, states that the noise from a heat pump cannot exceed 37 decibels (dB) when measured a metre away. 40dB is roughly equivalent to a quiet office or a library. Rollout struggles The Energy Secretary is pushing for Britain to install 600,000 heat pumps per year by 2028 as part of his net zero drive. Labour has already scrapped a rule requiring homeowners in England to gain planning consent to install heat pumps at least one metre away from a neighbouring property. The one-metre requirement had originally been introduced because some systems can emit a humming sound of up to 60dB, similar to the level produced by a fridge or dishwasher. Mr Miliband said that removing that rule had already 'made a difference' in terms of more widespread adoption of the technology. In an awkward situation for the Energy Secretary, his own neighbours are protesting against a five-storey residential development over concerns that its six proposed heat pumps will cause noise pollution. Justine Thornton, Mr Miliband's wife, is among those objecting to the development in their Dartmouth Park neighbourhood, calling them 'too tall, too bulky and too dense', although she did not mention anything in relation to the heat pumps. Campaigners warned that any relaxation of existing guidance could worsen noise pollution. Andrew Montford, of campaign group Net Zero Watch, said loosening restrictions around noise would 'undoubtedly lead to conflict between neighbours'. He said: 'When heat pumps are new, they tend to be relatively quiet, but as they age they can become very noisy.' John Stewart, chairman of the UK Noise Association, warned that any further easing of guidelines would 'remove the little protection residents have from heat pump noise'. He added: 'It will particularly impact lower-income people living in flats or terraced houses where inevitably heat pumps will be very close to their homes. 'Miliband would be much better insisting on high-quality heat pumps rather than loosening restrictions on them.' A government spokesman said: 'We have seen incredible innovation in heat pump design over the past decade, with technological advances meaning they have become quieter over time and noise complaints are rare. 'We have announced changes to remove planning constraints to make them easier to install and will review their impact to explore how we can further streamline the planning requirements to support heat pump take-up.'
