Dickens wrote about the workhouse and of foundlings; children literally left on steps of the parish, their parents unable or unwilling to look after them. They were left to the care of the local authorities, the Poor Law and the workhouse. These were dark days for the poor, with any help skewed by the parochial attitudes of the local parish. Provision was negligible and resources limited. Many fell through the gaps, help, where it was given, went to the deserving poor and not to the feckless.
Today, our government continues this shameful tradition in its search for smaller government. Of course they do not actually leave babies on the steps of the parish workhouse, but they are abandoning the "children" of our welfare state.
I am referring to the draft regulations for Universal Credit, Ian Duncan Smith's pursuit of a self confessed desire to modify the behaviour of some of our citizens. With the precision of a nuclear missile he is making changes to our welfare provision and perhaps hoping for the best that the 'deserving poor' don't get caught in the crossfire. His assault on the feckless, an underclass created by Margaret Thatcher in her government obsessed with the monetarist dogma of Freidman, seeks to set a cap that is blind to the amount of money that the law says people should live on. The generations of unemployed created as a cannon fodder in the war against inflation are now to being put on short rations.
As is always the case in such measures people with undeniable need do get caught in the crossfire and in the case of supported accommodation the needs of some our most vulnerable citizens are set to be left on the parish steps.
Chris Smith, a highly regarded welfare rights specialist has already raised the issue that supported housing, for people with disabilities, is ignored within the new Universal Credit Regulations and he is right to do so. The government, however, is not ignoring this sector and has said it is forming a working party to work on the future funding of supported housing, having put the matter out to consultation.
The outcome is likely to be that the responsibility for funding this provision and its current spend will to be transferred to a department within each local authority. This sounds a fair enough solution one might think and I am certain that it will be presented to Parliament as a revenue neutral solution... 'no cuts here' they will cry.
Don't be so sure, the Conservative Party has form on this.
In 1993 the then Conservative government did something similar when it transferred the responsibility for funding residential care for the elderly which was until then met largely by the Department for Social Security, to local authorities. It simultaneously transferred the budget, which was claimed as a revenue neutral exercise. However it was flawed; the Government's concern about spiralling costs were well placed as the number of placements had soared, partly because of poor gate keeping but mainly because our population was and is aging.
It was the government's failure to recognise the second of these causes in the settlement it made to local authorities, which revealed its true agenda of capping the cost.
In transferring the responsibility, the Government claimed a clear conscience; it had transferred the budget after all. However, Whitehall did nothing to recognise that the number of elderly people needing care, both community and residential, would rise, even though that demographic information was known.
Complaints about service shortfalls went unheeded, the budget had been transferred so surely the fault must lie with the local authorities and their management of the budget; Westminster was off the hook.
In 2012 we now have people with moderate levels of need being excluded from services as resources are focused on critical or substantial need. The baby has been left on the door step of the parish without the means to survive.
There are similar, well known issues, with supported accommodation. Many local authorities are in the process of repatriating people, currently placed in out of area placements to supported housing in their locality. Councils are doing this, in part, to meet the cuts imposed by central government. Coupled with this there are still many people with learning disabilities living with ageing parents and every day we get a new referral from someone whose accommodation is totally unsuitable and who is in need of costly specialist accommodation.
Great advances have been made in the field of supported housing but there is still a great deal to do, particularly over the next three years or so. To cap spending by transferring the current budget fails to recognise this and measures must be put in place to ensure that the budget continues to meet this increasing need.
One key way in which we can do this with some accuracy and can allow the responsibility for funding supported housing to transfer from central government to local authorities with a clear conscience is to apply a permanent ring fence around the funding that has been allocated. Governments tend to keep ring fencing in place for a limited period and the removal of the ring fence, while giving local authorities flexibility, masks any resource shortfalls for the provision in question.
Maintaining the ring fence gives us the ability to ensure that, as new housing is developed, the resources needed to drive it keep pace with the additional demand.
Specialist supported housing can be expensive but it fulfils a vital role, not only in saving the state money on expensive out of borough placements and sometimes inappropriate residential care situations but also in the lives of the disabled and vulnerable people in terms of inclusion. It is a child of the welfare state that we can truly be proud of and it should be nurtured. The costs of not doing so are incalculable, in terms of emergency or residential care and also in terms of the misery that fills the lives of people living in houses that fall well short of their needs.
I would like to take Mr Duncan Smith to meet some of our tenants, who can tell the Work and Pensions Minister better than I what a difference supported housing makes to their lives. However, I doubt that will happen so I have to be content with a plea to the working party. Please do not just leave this child on the steps of the Parish, look to its future need as well.