| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5 Feb 2003 : Column 135WH—continued
Beechwood Lodge, Basingstoke
4 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): I welcome the opportunity to raise in this short debate an issue that is of grave concern to me and to a significant number of people in the constituency of Basingstoke and in the wider borough of Basingstoke and Deane. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) is with us in spirit, but business elsewhere demands his attention. I know that he identifies himself with the broad thrust of the comments that I propose to make.
Almost a year ago—on 4 February, to be precise—I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for Health in which I expressed my profound concern about the deaths in the community in Basingstoke of five former residents of Beechwood lodge. I should explain that Beechwood lodge is a Stonham housing association hostel for single men. Four of the deaths happened within a few weeks of one another around Christmas 2001, and the body of one man lay undiscovered for three weeks or so. They followed the death in the community early in the year of another former resident.
In my letter, I asked the Secretary of State to set up an official inquiry into the five deaths and the way in which Hampshire social services, Stonham housing association and the borough council had acted. I also tabled parliamentary questions. The Secretary of State replied that he was not planning to hold an inquiry, but he did not totally rule out the possibility that one might be held. He implied, or so I understood, that he hoped that the inquiry instigated by the borough council would serve the same purpose. I regret to report that it has not. Concerns about what happened to former residents of Beechwood lodge have not remotely subsided during the past 12 months, perhaps because of the efforts of some to remove the issue from our local agenda. I return to the issue without apology and repeat my request for an official inquiry.
The five men died after being moved into the community following Stonham housing association's controversial decision to close the hostel. Their deaths gave rise to a storm of local protest over the lack of care and support that they had received after being moved out of the hostel. While the residents of Beechwood lodge were being moved into the community, Hampshire social services and Stonham housing association gave solemn assurances that residents' needs were being assessed and that appropriate care packages would be put in place. It later transpired that many of the residents were given no support in the community, but were left to fend for themselves.
On 7 February—three days after I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health—Basingstoke and Deane borough council announced that it had commissioned a review, not an inquiry, in partnership with Stonham housing association and the other relevant authorities and agencies. The review, which was labelled "independent", examined the procedures that had been followed in implementing the closure of Beechwood lodge. The independent review was also to make recommendations as to further action that might be taken to assist former residents and to advise how such processes should be carried out.
There was immediate concern locally. First, there was to be a review, not an inquiry. There is a fundamental difference between the two: by definition, an inquiry is inquisitive, whereas a review is an overview. The terms of reference focused too much on what had happened rather than on the whys and wherefores and where responsibility lay. There were also well-founded concerns about how genuinely independent a review could be if it were set up by the involved parties. It was also realised that the reviewer would have no statutory powers to summon witnesses or to demand papers, and it was uncertain what resources would be at his disposal and whether evidence would be heard in public or in private, and over what period of time. Not only were there many misgivings concerning the conditions surrounding the independent review, but the reviewer had no powers to compel the various agencies and authorities to implement any recommendations.
The task of conducting the review was given to Mr. Frank Rust, the chairman of the community health council and a past member of an area health authority and much else. I wish to state unambiguously that Mr. Rust's personal integrity and commitment to the task are not in dispute. He is rightly respected for his contribution to public life in many fields. The quarrel is not with the reviewer, Mr. Rust, but with the terms of reference that were imposed on him and the consequential limitations of his report. Furthermore, the borough council has subsequently handled the report. I emphasise that the review was the initiative of the borough council.
There was an early manifestation of concern. Mr. Rust was tasked with providing the council with an interim report prior to presenting his final report. He did so in April last year. We now know that the interim report was the only one that he provided. It was, in the words of a leading councillor,
- "polished and padded a bit".
Some members of the council felt that it was lacking in substance and detail, but it became the actual report. Moreover, copies of the interim report were sent to the various agencies and authorities involved, but not to individuals whom Mr. Rust had interviewed in the course of preparing it, such as Mrs. Anne Ritchie, who has played such a dedicated role in representing the interests of the residents of Beechwood lodge. The comments of those agencies were taken into account. It is truly alarming that the polishing and padding was provided by the council, an act that brings into serious question the ostensible and declared independence of the report.
A fortnight or so ago, Lord Laming made public the findings of his inquiry into the horrific suffering and death of Victoria Climbié. That tragic case has a number of points of contact with the Beechwood lodge saga, the most striking being the proliferation of responsible bodies. With the advantage of hindsight, one can see that each body tended to minimise its own responsibility and to maximise that of the others. Where there should have been multi-agency co-operation, there was multi-agency failure. At the time, I described the Rust report as
- "an anaesthetised analysis of a human tragedy which should never have happened."
The report inadequately stated that the tragedy was wholly avoidable. Some of the most vulnerable people in our community were grievously let down. Mr. Rust's
report appears to imply that prime responsibility lay with Stonham housing association. The report is essentially non-censorious. Stonham's appalling shortcomings are listed as a matter more for regret than for blame. Social services emerge in a poor light. At times they are more concerned about the resource implications of their involvement than the needs of residents. Mr. Rust recently reminded me that letters survive from social services and Stonham asking one another for extra resources. Not least, social services failed to complete assessments within the promised time.The report acknowledges the pivotal role of the borough council in providing accommodation for Beechwood lodge residents in the community, including sheltered housing schemes. The council could have influenced events far more than it did. It almost wholly ignored warnings—the correspondence survives. The report also finds that the Housing Corporation
- "could have taken a more proactive, even a strategic/leadership role".
It does not make it clear when that could or should have happened. Mr. Rust recently wrote to me, saying that the crux of the problem was the decision by the Housing Corporation to reduce the revenue grant for Beechwood lodge and its failure to fund the closure programme. As in the case of Victoria Climbié, each lapse may not of itself have been fatal, but taken together they were lethal. The catalogue of failure is chilling. One of the glaring weaknesses of the report is the absence of any testimony from former residents. The inquiry's terms of reference did not demand its inclusion, nor did they require the reviewer even to speak to former residents. The absence of such testimony detracts greatly from the completeness of the report.
In fact, the report tells us nothing that we did not already know. The closure of Beechwood lodge and the ensuing tragedy was a ghastly saga of multi-agency failure for which no one has been held responsible. It is a classic instance of the no-blame culture that bedevils modern society, but individuals formulated those strategies, and individuals took the decisions. They should have been held to account, but they were not. They could still be held to account.
Although every agency and authority involved bears some responsibility, there is particular concern about the borough council's attitude. It is summed up in the repeated assertions heard so often in public and in private: "We must not blame anyone; we must put this behind us and move on." The impression is given that some wish to sweep the whole horrific and tragic affair under the carpet.
It is piously hoped that the new "supporting people" strategy will prevent a repetition, and I share that hope. However, "supporting people" only formalises what should have happened in the past; it is no guarantee of delivery. Moreover, in Basingstoke, the "supporting people" strategy will be implemented by precisely the same agencies, and in some cases by the same people, that failed the residents of Beechwood lodge so badly.
A sizeable body of informed local opinion believes that, despite Mr. Rust's good intentions, his report inadequately analysed the complexity and the full horror of what happened in Basingstoke after Beechwood lodge residents were rehoused in the
community. There is much unease that the agencies and authorities responsible may have escaped too lightly. There is genuine concern about the council's perceived attitude. For these reasons, it is hoped that, even now, the Government will instigate a fuller inquiry to find out what went wrong and why, so that from the mistakes of the past we may learn lessons for the future.I do not ask the Minister to pronounce judgment immediately; this is a matter for thought and reflection. I ask her to give serious consideration to setting up such an inquiry, and I hope that in due course the Government will agree. The tragedy that followed the decision to close Beechwood lodge was both predictable and predicted. I have made the point that it happened because every involved authority and agency failed. Consequently, some of the most vulnerable people in our local community were grievously let down. The seriousness of what happened and the imperative of ensuring that lessons are learned demand an official inquiry.
4.14 pm
The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche) : I start by saying to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that I understand his great anxiety about the issue and the individual cases. I know that his concerns are deeply held and have been for some time. I thank him for giving me prior notice of some of the issues that he wanted to raise today. I also understand that when the hon. Gentleman speaks about the matters, he is representing the views of ex-residents and the members of Basingstoke Action for Single Homelessness. As he said, there is real local concern.
I want to describe the circumstances that I understand to have been in place and the reasons for the closure of Beechwood lodge. A regular three-year review of Beechwood lodge by the Housing Corporation found that many residents had alcohol issues that did not require the intensive support that would justify payment of the supported housing management grant. Beechwood lodge also had a void rate of about 30 per cent., which was below funding guidelines set by the corporation. The decision to close Beechwood lodge was taken by Stonham housing association, with the support of the Housing Corporation, Hampshire social services and Basingstoke and Deane borough council following consultation with stakeholders, including the local health authority.
A structural survey also showed problems with design to the extent that the cost of routine maintenance for the building was no longer sustainable. Basingstoke and Deane borough council had already provided £148,000 of housing association grant in 1995 to repair a building that was not even 10 years old.
My information is that residents were consulted about the decision to close the hostel, with more than 70 per cent. responding that they would prefer to move. I also understand that the closure was planned over a four-year period to July 2001 to ensure that appropriate placements were found for all residents. However, despite joint working, the information given to my officials was that some people did not accept the care packages that were offered to all residents by the agencies as part of the re-provision arrangements and preferred to move into independent accommodation, which was perfectly within their rights.
Consultation with the residents highlighted the fact that 74 per cent. would prefer to live in flats, bedsits or shared accommodation. As half of the bed spaces were permanent and the home was running at 80 per cent. capacity, there were only 40 bed spaces for which vacancies could occur. The borough council and Stonham planned re-provision around finding alternative accommodation for the long-term residents and providing an equivalent number of other bed spaces in the first instance, followed by a programme of expansion based on the needs of the individual in line with the "supporting people" requirements, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
In 1998, Stonham assessed 77 residents and found that 32 needed further health and care assessments. The council's health and housing committee subsequently put in place an initial re-provision plan to increase the number of move-on nominations to 13 each year, in order to assist residents with little or no support needs—needs that could be met through floating support in alternative accommodation.
I understand that by June 2000, the borough council had submitted a multi-agency strategic plan to the health and housing committee; four months later, it was approved by a panel of elected members. The result was that multi-agency assessments with social services could ideally match the remaining residents with appropriate accommodation. In the months leading up to the closure, joint assessments took place for about 20 residents with high support needs. The residents were accompanied to viewings of alternative accommodation by Stonhan or council housing officers, who worked to find housing options that met the needs of and were acceptable to residents.
Our information is that all residents were rehoused in other schemes more appropriate to their level of need. Since the announcement of the closure of Beechwood lodge, the 40 lost bed spaces have been replaced with the equivalent of more than 140 new bed spaces, including Mary Rose court. I have not had the advantage of visiting Mary Rose court, but I understand that the hon. Gentleman has been there and I believe that he was impressed by what he saw.
Additional bed spaces have been provided through a number of initiatives, including local authority social housing grant, and floating support. By that I mean workers who provide support to help people to live independently and to support tenancies for those with low support needs. That should either prevent vulnerable people from becoming homeless or enable them to sustain a more independent tenancy.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the review commissioned by the council. It was run by Mr. Frank Rust, the ex-chairman of the community health council. The report made a number of recommendations. It recommended, first, that all vulnerable ex-residents should be contacted to assess the level of support that they receive; secondly, that Basingstoke Action Against Single Homelessness and other supporting agencies should be included in developing the borough council's homelessness strategy; and thirdly, that the agency should lead on commissioning services for those vulnerable to homelessness. My information is that the council has implemented all those recommendations.
I understand that health and social services both advise that it is no longer appropriate to provide one large-scale institution in the area, where residents may become deskilled. That was confirmed by a recent survey into the housing needs of single people, in which the hostel residents were well represented.
The hon. Gentleman, as he has said, asked the Department of Health to investigate the circumstances leading to the deaths of former residents of the hostel, and to assess the performance of agencies providing care and support at Beechwood lodge. The Department declined to undertake an inquiry into the circumstances of the deaths of four men following the closure of Beechwood lodge because it was judged that such an inquiry would not add value to the inquiry already commissioned, and that a separate inquiry might have impeded the progress of the internal inquiry. The social services inspectorate has maintained contact with Hampshire social services on the progress of the inquiry and received a copy of the report in July 2002. I understand that the local agencies have continued to discuss the outcome of the report, and that the local council discussed the matter in its overview and scrutiny committee in January.
At that community overview and scrutiny committee, the council agreed that it was content that the housing strategy addressed the issues of vulnerable residents within the borough. However, the social services inspectorate is continuing to liase with Hampshire social services department to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to implement lessons learned from the inquiry and its outcome.
Improved joint working between agencies coupled with new provision across the borough for men and women has resulted in housing support being more tailored to the needs of individuals. The introduction of the supported housing panel also ensures more appropriate housing together with appropriate support in future. It is supported by the borough council, the Housing Corporation and the "safer communities" programme in investing more than £4.4 million in accommodation for vulnerable people.
Funding has also increased to develop floating support services. The borough council has invested £1.5 million to purchase 31 houses for statutory homeless households and provided other funds for a 14-bed hostel, which is due to open in July, which can accommodate single homeless people or homeless households. The borough council is also undertaking a feasibility study on the provision of a day centre as part of its review of homelessness provision in the borough. I know from my experience what valuable work day centres do.
Tackling homelessness is about considering individual circumstances. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not just about seeing whether people have a roof over their head but about considering their special needs and supporting them. The homlessness directorate within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has provided more than £100,000 to help
Basingstoke and Deane to put in place some homeless prevention projects such as a rent deposit scheme for intentionally homeless people, a mediation service and a supported lodgings scheme for 16 and 17-year-olds. Funding is also being used to employ a specialist housing advice officer and a new homelessness and resettlement officer.Today the Government announced their proposals in "Sustainable Communities: building for the future" to provide a major programme of affordable homes for key public sector workers and those in priority housing need. In that document there is a commitment to continue with the work on homelessness outlined in "More than a Roof", which goes into detail about how people's individual needs are to be considered when dealing with homelessness.
Our objectives are to develop more strategic approaches to preventing homelessness and to consider how to deal with the subject; to encourage new responses to tackling homelessness such as mediation schemes; and to strengthen the help available to people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.
We have passed legislation to strengthen the help available for people who need it and from April the "supporting people" programme will provide support services to vulnerable people and help them to stay in
their homes. I hope that the hon. Member for Basingstoke will be reassured when the programme is implemented and developed.I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising some interesting and important points, which the Government will consider. It is important that we improve our services, especially when they are provided to vulnerable people. There is a greater range of provision for homeless people in Basingstoke and Deane, which is supported by the Homelessness Act 2002 and from April by the "supporting people" programme.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the borough council is one of the district councils working in partnership with others as part of its "supporting people" strategy; although it does not come in until April, a great deal of preparation is going on to ensure that it is implemented properly. Hampshire has always worked well with its district councils and with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and continues to do so.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising the issue and I hope that I have been able to reassure him.
- Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |