Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Jess Phillips

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I partially thank the shadow Home Secretary for his tone, but I will correct the record. I did not say that he had done nothing: I said that Baroness Casey said that there had been

“a decade of inaction on these appalling crimes by previous Governments”.

That is exactly what I said.

I answered in my statement many of the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. His office may have spoken to some of the Oldham victims today; I spoke to some of them personally last night, so I keep in touch with lots of victims. What I will not do—what I will never do—is make it so that they are not involved. It takes time to ensure that this process is completely victim centred. Frankly, I am sure that is what he and other Members on the Opposition Benches who have written to me with that request want to see, and that is the process we are undertaking.

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, no local authority area can turn the inquiry down. The Home Secretary and I have said a number of times that it is a full, powerful statutory inquiry. I have seen some scaremongering, and victims have written to me to say, “This will not cover Government officials or people who covered things up.” That is absolute nonsense. Let me be very clear, and let it be taken away by everybody who I am sure has the best interests of victims at heart, that it will cover what it needs to cover to uncover the truth, and no stone will be left unturned. That will make for difficult conversations for people.

If people are found by our court system to have undermined and disgraced public office, they should of course be sent to prison. However, that has never happened to date in these cases. I very much hope that we uncover the kind of social workers that the right hon. Gentleman refers to, and I hope that they face the full force of everything that they deserve to face, but there is absolutely nothing that says that anybody can avoid this inquiry. It will be up to the inquiry, which is independent and statutory, to look at and work with areas about where this will be.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her statement. No one doubts her, and her team’s, absolute commitment to addressing the root causes of the abuse and exploitation that so many women and some boys have experienced. In my contact with women this morning—I speak on their behalf—I heard that they are absolutely committed and understand and reflect the commitment of my hon. Friend, but they are keen to know a bit more detail about when the chair can be appointed and about the relationship that the national inquiry will have with the local inquiries.

My hon. Friend quite rightly said that victims and survivors should be engaged and involved in the appointment of the chair, and that is so important. Will she say more about how we will ensure that there is locality-specific representation as well? There are slight differences according to locality.

[Jess Phillips]

There absolutely are. My hon. Friend is exactly right that there are differences, so it will be for the chair, a panel and a commission to do that work in localities and ensure that victim engagement is really location specific.

With regard to the specific issue in Oldham, we have been engaging very closely with Oldham for some time, including with victims and survivors. As I said, I spoke to some of them last night about wanting them to be part of the terms of reference for the national inquiry. Our offer for a full and local independent inquiry in Oldham remains in place, and we are in discussion with them about how they want to proceed in the context of the national inquiry. We do not want to have victims having to do a repetitive exercise, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are speaking to officials in Oldham very regularly.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Jess Phillips

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Debbie Abrahams]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Those housing providers provide housing and support to a very vulnerable group, including people with mental health conditions. The measure will affect their opportunity and ability to live independently and well.

The impact on accommodation for homeless people with support needs demonstrates how damaging the change would be for supported housing as a whole. Over 90% of residential homelessness services rely on housing benefit as a key funding stream. One homeless organisation in the north-east of England has modelled the impact of the change on the 300 beds of supported accommodation that it provides, which accommodate 1,400 disadvantaged people a year. The impact of the 1% rent reduction, assuming that other costs increase by 2% or 3% a year, is that 50% of its accommodation projects will be financially unviable in 2016-17. It is absolutely imminent. That is key. The pace of the clause’s implementation means that we will be facing problems in the next few months and I hope the Minister responds appropriately. It gets worse, I am afraid: the organisation has mentioned 100% financial unviability by 2017-18. What will happen to that vulnerable group of people?

A second organisation, St Mungo’s Broadway, provides accommodation support to 3,800 people each year across London and the south-east of England. I have visited the project here and in the midlands. St Mungo’s estimates that the 1% annual rent reduction requirement will result in it losing £1.25 million in rental income by year 4—between £250,000 and £300,000 each year. Taking into account the rental income that the organisation anticipates over that period, the overall impact on its finances over the four-year period is a loss of £4 million. That loss of income will force some projects to close, resulting in the loss of accommodation for homeless and disadvantaged people.

Mr Owen, I expect that you have experienced an increase in rough sleeping in your constituency. I was shocked recently, in the last month or so, when I arrived back in Manchester from Parliament late one night. Every 50 metres there was somebody sleeping rough. The fact that the measures will affect organisations such as St Mungo’s is serious. I have mentioned the groups of people supported by those housing providers. The providers have estimated who will be affected in percentage terms. They expect that people with learning disabilities and physical health problems, people who have slept rough and people with a history of offending, and people with alcohol, drug and mental health problems who have been accessing their services for support needs, will be affected.

As has been mentioned, the measures will have an enormous impact on services working with other disadvantaged people. A large national provider of supported housing has estimated that the change will lead to the loss of 104 schemes, removing 1,969 support spaces for clients, including 228 spaces for people experiencing domestic violence. A small specialist learning disability provider will have its operating margins reduced to 0.2% and will be forced to cancel all proposed development of learning difficulty schemes. A large national organisation will be forced to reduce planned development of extra care by 400 units, including units specifically to help people home from hospital. Such organisations reduce the pressures that our beleaguered NHS is experiencing—the measures will have a direct impact on the NHS.

There is a precedent. The principle of treating supported housing separately from other social housing for welfare reform purposes was recognised in the previous Government’s proactive decision to keep housing costs for specified accommodation out of universal credit and the benefit cap calculations.

[Jess Phillips]

Does my hon. Friend want to pay credit to Ministers for removing specified accommodation during the previous Government? It most certainly meant that, at the refuge where I worked at the time, we could maintain operations exactly as they were, and in fact develop some others. The Minister spoke earlier about listening. Perhaps we should pay credit to the Government for listening on that occasion.