To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of partnership working between prisons and local housing authorities in preventing homelessness and rough sleeping among prisoners released early.
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who are here today to debate an issue that could get lost amidst the penal populism informing much of the response to the next waves of early release following the Sentencing Act 2026.
Why do I refer to penal populism? Crime must be punished, and I completely understand the concerns of many victims about early release. However, the public vengefulness politicians court to achieve popularity, notably by demanding ever-longer custodial sentences, has led to ever-longer sentences, clogged up our prisons and contributed to the need for these great swathes of early release. The inflation in custodial sentence length between 2010 and 2025 was 45%.
In their book, The Honest Politician’s Guide to Prisons and Probation, criminologists King and Willmott reveal just how many ex-Justice Secretaries, from both main parties, regret “playing to the gallery” as
“tough law and order figures”,
as my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who was Home Secretary following the 1992 general election, described his successors. This response was driven by the understandable outcry following the Jamie Bulger killing in early 1993 by two other children. Instead of acknowledging the need to challenge inadequate parenting and manage expectations about what a criminal justice system can do, the Home Secretary who followed my noble friend Lord Clarke kickstarted the still ongoing competition between the two main parties as to who could be toughest on crime.
My response to the arms race that penal populism generates and has filled our prisons with is that, like the nuclear arms race, we simply cannot afford the price tag, either in sheer cash terms of £60,000 to £65,000 per prisoner per annum, or the squandering of human potential. Those sentenced for sexual offences—over one-fifth of prisoners—are treated as unreservedly heinous despite considerable variability in seriousness and the hypersexualisation of society. We want to lock them up and throw away the key, but the vast majority will leave prison. They and we need their genuine rehabilitation. Many have lost their families, livelihoods and homes. Only about one-third move into settled accommodation post release, compared to the average of around 45%.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this important debate. For 1,000 prison leavers every single month, their first day of freedom is the first day of a new sentence: rough sleeping on our streets. The cyclical link between homelessness and the justice system is not an abstract policy debate; it is an urgent humanitarian and public safety emergency happening right outside our doors.
We must be honest about how we got here. This crisis is the structural inheritance of 14 years of systemic neglect by previous Governments. On their watches we have seen a staggering rise in rough sleeping and a left-behind, crumbling prison estate running dangerously close to absolute capacity because of a failure to build secure social housing. Worse, they chose punishment over prevention. By keeping the archaic Vagrancy Act on the statute book, the state’s default response to a vulnerable prison leaver sleeping in a doorway was to criminalise rather than support them. It was a broken approach that practically guaranteed a fast-track route back to custody. As a result, 68% of prisoners released directly on to the streets reoffend within a single year.
Thankfully, we are seeing a fundamental shift from crisis management to genuine prevention. Having worked at the front end of social housing for almost two decades, I welcome the recognition of the present Government that stable housing is the foundation of public safety. Instead of papering over the cracks, decisive action is now being taken. This includes decriminalisation: the Government have officially repealed the draconian Vagrancy Act, treating rough sleeping as a vulnerability requiring support, not a crime. Secondly, there is a strategic blueprint, guided by the national plan to end homelessness, which introduces a landmark duty to collaborate, legally compelling prisons, probation services and local councils to co-ordinate before a prisoner is released.
However, breaking this cycle is not about demanding more taxpayer money. There are powerful, resource-neutral changes we can make tomorrow by replacing red tape with common sense. First, we must permanently ban Friday releases, which dump vulnerable people on to the pavement just as council offices close for the weekend, stranding them until Monday. Moving discharge dates to mid-week costs nothing but saves lives. Secondly, we must ensure “day-one readiness”. No prisoner should cross the threshold without a valid ID, an active bank account and a pre-processed universal credit claim ready to go. Finally, we should scale peer-led mentoring models, training serving inmates as housing advisers inside the estate to manage paperwork before release. This is not about funding; it is about rewriting a broken system.
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, on securing this debate on a subject which I know is dear to his heart. It is also important to me. Both of us spoke to amendments in debates on the Social Housing Bill around the difficulties of housing ex-offenders. Much depends on how long the offender has been in prison, whether they are still in touch with their family, whether they are likely to secure employment and, not least, their mental health.
The Library has produced an extensive brief for this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has provided startling statistics. In 2024-25, approximately 1,000 prisoners a month were released from prison without anywhere to stay and went on to sleep rough, as has already been said. It seems that the early release scheme, introduced in 2024 to reduce the prison overcrowding, has not always been implemented in a satisfactory fashion but hurriedly, with little preparation made for accommodation provision.
An ex-offender released with nowhere to go on their first night is likely to sleep rough. This means a shop doorway, a traditional bus shelter—not a modern one—an empty, derelict property or even a park bench. This might seem acceptable on a short-term basis with weather similar to that we are currently experiencing, but not if it is November or January, raining and with temperatures well below those to which they have been acclimatised in prison.
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this important debate, not least because it brings together two of my long-term concerns—homelessness and the rehabilitation of offenders. I declare my interests as the chair of the Church Housing Association and as a trustee of the Clink Charity, which works within and beyond prisons.
Homelessness is both a cause and a consequence of offending. Breaking this cycle requires an understanding of individual vulnerabilities and a “whole community” approach to rehabilitation. Without long-term, joined-up thinking that provides prison leavers with the tools to live independently, prisoners are trapped in a cycle of reoffending. This undermines their intrinsic human value. From these Benches, I would add “their God-given value”. In St Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus notably refers to concern for prisoners as one of just a handful of criteria determining a divine judgment.
At the risk of repeating a cliché, prisoner rehabilitation requires a person-centred approach. It is a cliché that needs repeating, because all too often what we offer those leaving prison is a service-centred approach. The convenience of service providers and their organisational boundaries separate a human being into a series of disjointed attributes. They are homeless; they are unemployed; they are unskilled; they are unwell; they are unable to receive benefits in a timely manner. Different service providers then seek to respond to these distinct aspects, often in an ill-connected way. The person falls between the cracks. At the same time, the services that are provided in prison are too often separated from those provided outside.
All major life transitions are challenging, even if they are as welcome as being released from prison. If the transition into life on the out is not to lead to further offending, many of those released, especially those who have served sentences of more than minimal duration, will need accompanying over a period of months, if not years, by a consistent human presence, a trusted human presence, within and without the walls.
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for tabling this debate and for his compassionate and evidence-based work over many years in this space to make our country safer and to improve the lives of all those impacted by the criminal justice system. The topic of this debate is a subject close to my heart as well, having spent part of my career working with people immediately prior to, on the day of, and following, release—known in the sector as “through the gate” work. I will focus most of my remarks today on women, because that is the bulk of where my professional experience lies.
As alluded to by the right reverend Prelate, the transition from prison to community is a tough one. Some of the people I have worked with have told me it was a tougher transition than going from the community to prison. It is made harder by a lack of supportive relationships with people not involved in crime, by complicated applications for benefits, by trying to ensure that you have the correct medication, by perhaps trying to ensure that you have the correct support for abstinence programmes—and then you might be met at the gates by your pimp or dealer. There is also the enormous social stigma that can last many years after your conviction and licence have ended. In the middle of all this is the question of where the person might sleep that night and on subsequent nights, which is crucial to determining future positive outcomes.
Noble Lords are well aware that the country is in a housing crisis and a prison population and capacity crisis. I am proud to sit on these Labour Benches and I support all that we are doing to address this, not least in the Social Housing Bill, which we will debate on Report on Monday.
Neither the prison crisis nor the housing crisis can be solved overnight. But, alongside the immediate actions that this Government have taken, I urge noble Lords to continue to use the privilege of being long-term incumbents to ensure that strategic and longer-term plans are laid, so that we are able to both prevent and solve women’s homelessness and criminal justice involvement.
My Lords, I pay tribute to the many people who have spoken in the debate, with their direct and personal knowledge and commitment to this intractable issue: a subject that so often people do not want to know about. Above all, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his steadfast and long-term commitment to people in prison, their relationships and their families, because so many relationships break down when someone goes to prison, and then the prospect of finding a home or work when they come out is all the less. I am only saying the obvious, but it needs to be repeated.
No one should complete a prison sentence, step outside and find the pavement waiting; we all agree that a prison sentence must never become a sentence to homelessness. But delivering that aspiration in practice is an intractable and complex problem. Partnership between prisons, probation and local housing authorities is essential, but it is not sufficient. The voluntary sector plays a vital role. So many of us are going to refer to different voluntary sector projects. The Clink is quite remarkable, and I must quickly declare my interest as I think my firm once found one of the chief executives, and I got to know them extremely well. The voluntary sector can act flexibly and swiftly to provide innovative solutions. The voluntary sector can sometimes take steps that are unpopular with the public, whom, if you are an elected body, you have unfortunately to satisfy.
The official figures should disturb us profoundly. In the year to March, only 84% of prison leavers were housed the night following their release. Nacro calculates that more than 12,000 people a year leave prison homeless or are rough sleeping, which is more than 1,000 people every month. Of course they are not just statistics; they are people leaving custody, frequently with little money, addiction, medical vulnerabilities, fragile or non-existent family relationships and no place to go.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for bringing this topic to our attention today, and I pay tribute to him for his tireless work in this area of concern. It is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley.
The north-east, where I live, offers both encouragement and challenge to the theme of our debate today. HMP Northumberland, Northumberland County Council, the probation services and voluntary organisations, which we have already heard quite a lot about, have developed strong partnerships to improve resettlement. Those partnerships deserve recognition, but they also raise the important question of how we are assessing their effectiveness. Success should not be measured simply by whether a referral has been made or a duty fulfilled. It should be measured by outcomes. As other noble Lords have asked, did someone leave prison with suitable accommodation? Were they still housed weeks and months later? Did they avoid rough sleeping? Were they able to access healthcare, treatment for substance misuse and, where appropriate, employment and training? Those outcomes are closely connected. Homelessness rarely exists in isolation. It intersects with poor mental health, addiction, unemployment and social exclusion.
Nacro’s recent report, Reducing Deaths Among Prison Leavers, reminds us of the human consequences. It found that people released from prison in the north-east are around six times more likely to die from a drug-related cause within two weeks of release than those released in the east of England. While the report makes clear that this disparity cannot be explained by homelessness alone, it underlines the importance of viewing housing as part of a wider resettlement pathway, rather than as a stand-alone intervention.
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this debate on a very serious issue that involves a very real tragedy. We have heard that every month about 1,000 prisoners are released from prison directly into homelessness. The Question from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, appears to start from the proposition that early release is an important contributor to homelessness. It may be, but I am not sure we have the evidence on that issue. We do know, however, that any release into homelessness has a very severe impact on released prisoners achieving reintegration. Indeed, it is almost self-evident that they will not, and the stark evidence that there is calls into question our whole strategy.
As my noble friend Lady Bakewell pointed out, the risks of release without a home to go to, away from warmth and company—such as it is in prison—are severe. Prisoners on release risk mental health breakdown and relapse into alcohol or drug abuse, and their risks of reoffending are magnified. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred to the “cycle of reoffending”. The noble Baroness, Lady Gill, also reminded us of the cyclical issues that follow unplanned release. Worse still, the risks of self-harm and early suicide are seriously increased by homelessness and rough sleeping. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle emphasised the regional differences on that.
2:53 pm
20 of 23 shown
More generally, imprisonment itself renders offenders homeless when tenancies lapse, mortgages are not paid or family circumstances mean they cannot return home. Despite a continuing duty of care, far too many are released homeless. Also, rehabilitation without a proper roof is almost impossible, and the statistics bear this out: their proven reoffending rate of 76% is more than double the 36.4% of those who reoffend after being released into settled accommodation. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have assessed how many of those released early are likely to return to prison, whether through recalls for breaching licence conditions or reoffending?
This is a far grislier question, but have they assessed how many are likely to die? Leaving prison homeless is a major risk factor for death shortly after release. Last month, a Guardian investigation reported record numbers of deaths within two weeks of release in 2025—a 28% rise since 2021. Similarly, the charity Nacro found that more than one person dies every day in the year after leaving prison, and last year one in every 144 people released died within that period, more than three times the rate in 2015. In 40% of cases, drugs are a factor and homelessness interacts fatally with that: there is no structure, support or healthcare.
Inside Time, the prisoners’ newspaper—which I know the Minister reads, as do I—says that:
“An estimated 6,000 prisoners will be released earlier than planned from English and Welsh jails in 10 monthly tranches, starting on 2 September”.
So it is very concerning that HM Inspectorate of Prisons told the Commons Public Accounts Committee in November 2024 that, at some prisons, the limited housing stock available for those released had been
“overwhelmed by early release schemes”.
Although the Government have responded to Written Questions by saying that local authorities collaborate effectively with the Prison Service to reduce homelessness, Ministry of Justice data shows that almost 13,000 people left prison homeless or as rough sleepers in the year to April 2025—a 39% rise from the previous year. Similarly, the Government’s A National Plan to End Homelessness states that this
“could have been prevented had better coordination and planning been in place”.
The duty to refer in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was designed to facilitate this, and almost half of all “duty to refer” referrals are from criminal justice system organisations. Almost 10 years on from that Act, I welcome the implicit recognition in the proposed new duty to collaborate that it is not working as it should for ex-prisoners. Will the Minister explain how the new duty to collaborate will achieve the level of change required and whether it will be introduced in time to meet September’s heightened need for housing? What incentives, or even sanctions where necessary, will be put in place to ensure better joint working, not least in the interests of rehabilitation?
Prison capacity has been such an emergency issue, but the time has surely come for this to come into much sharper focus as a slower-burn way of reducing our prison population and the criminal justice budget. Reoffending costs us all £18 billion a year. Releasing prisoners into homelessness, especially rough sleeping, single-handedly undermines any previous and future rehabilitation activity. Without accommodation, they cannot seek work and restructure their lives.
Collaboration with local housing authorities is essential for rehabilitation. Some are far more effective than others at finding accommodation for ex-prisoners, even in areas of very pressured housing markets. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman reports that many London boroughs compare badly with statistical neighbours where housing is concerned. In 2025, the London Assembly housing committee flagged inconsistent practice across London boroughs with weak co-ordination between prisons, probation and borough housing teams; prisons not consistently complying with the duty to refer; and late referrals from prisons contributing greatly to uncertainty.
I return to the plan to end homelessness. This Government have committed, by the end of this Parliament, to a 50% reduction in homelessness among people on their first night out of prison and an increase in the number of prison leavers in settled accommodation three months post release and thereafter. To conclude, I ask the Minister to outline how prisons and probation will deliver their responsibilities under the plan to embed local partnerships, collocation and pre-release planning.
Providing a roof to a prison leaver is the necessary cornerstone of justice and public safety. I welcome the Government’s progress, but I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the Minister to clarify some critical challenges. First, how will the Government ensure that local councils are fully resourced to transition prison leavers from temporary, 12-week emergency placements on to permanent, secure social housing so that we can permanently close the revolving door? Secondly, will the Government rapidly implement no-cost, structural reforms such as ending Friday releases and mandating day-one ID readiness to stop people slipping through the bureaucratic cracks?
Those who have served long sentences may have become dependent on the prison routine and feel anxious about being released and how to cope outside. It is no wonder that, on release, some engage in criminal activity in the hope of being rearrested and returned to an environment which will both house and feed them and where there will be company of sorts. If it were a choice of sleeping rough in the middle of winter or returning to prison, I feel I might choose the latter.
The role of the local housing authority is absolutely key to ensuring that appropriate accommodation is provided to ex-offenders on the day of their release. There are of course probation hostels, which, provided they have capacity, can cover up to 12 weeks.
Young men and women on release will want to rebuild their lives. Offenders commit crimes and arrive in prisons for a variety of reasons, not least of which might be their inability to communicate effectively, read or write, or understand basic maths. If there is sufficient capacity within the allocated prison, these skills can be acquired alongside qualifications to help gain employment on release. But accommodation will be the stepping stone to set them on their way. The elderly may have served long sentences and not be equipped for life without support. Can the Minister say how many prisoners who are released are over the age of 70?
I turn to those on remand. Once they come to trial, some may be found innocent and released from court. Does the Minister have figures for how long the average stay on remand is? There are also those who are found guilty but whose sentence is such that they have already served it on remand and so are released straightaway. How many, once they come to court, are released without further imprisonment? These figures are not currently included in published figures. Nevertheless, this group will need help with housing as well as other support to rebuild their lives.
The duty to collaborate with local authorities is part of the national plan to end homelessness and support those who are in crisis. Local authorities have strategies to house the homeless, but it is not easy. There are also charities and agencies whose aims are to support ex-prisoners on their release. It is, however, vital that they are given sufficient notice to allow them to find the relevant accommodation. It is extremely disappointing that the duty to collaborate has not yet been implemented. Can the Minister say when this is likely to happen—and please not say “shortly”? Without this measure, some ex-offenders will continue to have nothing but sleeping rough to look forward to.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments at the end of this important debate.
Homelessness is a deepening crisis. Recent Nacro figures show a 40% increase in the number of people released from prison into homelessness. People who leave prison are twice as likely to reoffend if they are homeless. Prisoners often lose their homes because they are unable to continue paying rent. Meanwhile, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, powerfully reminded us, releases on Fridays or otherwise out of working hours mean that support services are not immediately available. Who is immediately available is the drug dealer.
Prison leavers are left to fend for themselves in an unfamiliar world. Housing associations and other providers must be empowered to facilitate housing assessments while prisoners are still in custody and to identify those most at risk of falling through the cracks. They must be enabled to provide prison leavers with routes into stable accommodation and should be given adequate notice of release to allow them to do it effectively.
Housing provision is not much use if you cannot pay for it. The inability of claimants to begin a universal credit application while in prison pushes prison leavers into poverty immediately they are released. With the DWP more closely integrated into pre-release planning, prison leavers might be given the financial means to find accommodation from the day of their release. Not only would this better enable them to settle, it would leave them less tempted to reoffend in order to find the money to pay the rent.
While such measures could go a long way towards preventing homelessness in the short term, it is not enough to tackle the symptoms without addressing at the same time the root causes. To achieve lasting housing security, prison leavers must be given the skills, as other noble Lords have already said, to find steady employment and generate a reliable income.
The Clink Charity, where I serve as a trustee and with which the Minister is very familiar, provides training and rehabilitation support to people in prison or at risk of offending. Informed by their clients’ histories of trauma, unstable housing, exclusion from education and poor mental health, the Clink has now successfully trained over 5,000 people. It is a prime example of the joined-up working I am talking about. It means that prison leavers are treated as ends rather than means, and as people who are able to live lawful lives and make positive contributions to our communities. If any noble Lords want to know more about the charity, please come along to our flagship restaurant in Brixton Prison.
This debate gives us an opportunity to begin to shape what a more integrated provision for those leaving prison, especially the many facing homelessness, might look like. I know that the Minister has this very much in his own heart and I look forward to him responding to the debate in due course.
I want to tell you about Hayley, who I worked with—unsurprisingly, that is not her real name. I met her a few days before her release from a prison located far from anywhere, as they often are, it seems to me. On the day of her release, we went on several bus journeys to save money, rather than using other forms of transport, to take her to probation, the drug and alcohol services and the homeless persons unit. There, we sat through a perfunctory questionnaire while it was rattled off—“Do you have pets? What is your local connection? Are you the victim of domestic abuse? Are you the victim of sexual assault? Have you ever worked in prostitution?”—as though these were perfectly normal questions to ask in a public council office.
We spent several hours there and through advocacy we were able to secure her somewhere to sleep that night. But the part of the borough where she had been engaged in prostitution was also the part of the borough where cheap B&B temporary accommodation was available, and that was what the local authority could afford. Therefore, after a very long day—we were on hour 10 or 11 by this point—we went with the keys to an address in the very streets where she had previously been living and working, using drugs and being involved in prostitution. I took her to this sparsely furnished room via Tesco to get a few bits and left her for the night in this very basic room with nothing more than a magazine and a box of cereal to distract her. I was not optimistic about how this was going to go, and it felt deeply unsatisfactory to leave her there. A decade later, as I recount this to noble Lords, I am still deeply unsatisfied by our failure to meet that woman’s needs and to keep her safe, even though it might have been regarded as a success because she had a roof over her head for the night.
I am sure that well-informed noble Lords across your Lordships’ House are keen to take a strategic view and, just as Marmot introduced the idea of the social determinants of health, noble Lords here can work on the social determinants of crime. In Hayley’s case it was childhood trauma contributed to by parental addiction, resulting in her own addiction, being groomed into prostitution as a teenager and living on the streets when she was not living in a prison.
There are many charities and local authorities doing good work in this space, and I urge the Minister to keep digging into that evidence and drawing on the resource available from local authorities. My former workplace, Islington Council, does amazing work finding solutions in this space. It has a Housing First officer employed by the council to meet prison leavers at the prison gate. They are co-located in the probation office to co-design their service. They have quarterly meetings with probation and, at the last rough sleeping count, nobody found rough sleeping in Islington had left prison.
I wonder whether the Minister has come across the Californian outfit Impact Justice, which, through its Homecoming project, has helped house 600,000 people leaving prison for six months using an Airbnb-style platform where hosts offer their spare room to the person being released. A scheme like that would ensure that another Hayley will not be left in a box room with a magazine and a box of cereal for company, with the whole system just crossing its fingers that it will work. We have to get this right. I urge the Minister to continue pursuing best practice, from local authorities and internationally, to meet this need.
I appreciate that the Government have said much to suggest that they are signed up to this agenda. We are all realistic about the pressure on public funding and the difficulty of taking the public with us, and I am sure nobody more than the Minister fights the corner in private, whatever he can say to us in public.
I wonder when the Minister will feel able to publish specific accommodation and reoffending outcomes for prisoners released early. This, of course, is an extra complicating factor. The comment about not releasing people on a Friday is so often said, but when will it be delivered? A form passed from one public body to another does not, I am afraid, keep somebody off the streets. Practical steps have to follow. The Inspectorate of Prisons reports that many establishments still release 20% to 30% of prisoners without a settled address, and the independent monitoring boards describe release preparation as “alarmingly inadequate”. What further reassurance can the Minister give us that there will be improvement in this field?
Homeless Link, another voluntary body working directly with people experiencing homelessness, offers practical answers—I always like those. They are: first, assume that every prisoner is at risk of homelessness until demonstrated otherwise; secondly, begin planning early; thirdly, complete housing applications inside prisons; fourthly, bring all the relevant agencies together before release. But more must be done, and I want to commend to the Minister a charity that I have come to know very well.
The issue for many is that when they finish the 84-night statutory stay, there is a critical window. If the prison leaver cannot overcome practical financial barriers, they may still leave temporary accommodation for the street. Small grants released quickly for deposits, identification documents, essential furniture or travel can make all the difference. I wonder how many people in this House know about Greater Change. Does anybody? Greater Change is a thrilling, pioneering charity started by Jonathan Tan when he left Oxford 10 years ago. It provides small grants through the care workers to help prisoners and others at risk of homelessness, and it is obsessively evidence based. It is quite remarkable. When I first heard of this charity, I thought: “That is exactly what needs to be done”, because it reinforces the value of the trusted front-line worker who assesses whether the individual is worthy of the project or can justify it, and then it raises the money to provide these grants.
Greater Change is currently proposing a £10 million programme that would enable personalised budgets to support more than 5,500 people leaving custody. It would evaluate housing stability, progression from CAS3 into settled accommodation, engagement with probation, employment outcomes, reoffending and savings across the criminal justice system. I do not want to test the Minister’s patience, because he has very kindly met MM McCabe from Philosophy in Prison, but I really hope he will find a chance to meet the team from Greater Change, who are as good as those at Emmaus and the Forward Trust. We all need to work together to deliver this agenda.
There is also a strong economic case for getting this right. Preventing homelessness at the point of release reduces pressure on emergency accommodation, health services, the criminal justice system and local authorities. Stable housing provides the foundation on which recovery, family relationships and employment can be rebuilt. Without that foundation, the risk of reoffending and repeated crisis raises significantly. Partnership working should therefore be viewed not simply as good practice but as a sound investment in safer communities, better public services and better outcomes for individuals seeking to make a fresh start after prison. Early release makes this even more challenging because it compresses the time available to co-ordinate housing, healthcare and community support. That makes effective partnership working more important than ever. Organisations such as the Oswin Project in Northumberland, with its excellent café in Newcastle Cathedral, show what can be achieved when employment support, mentoring and rehabilitation are integrated with housing. But these initiatives depend on timely planning and sustained collaboration.
Nacro has called for a clear plan to halve by 2029 the proportion of people leaving prison who are homeless. I hope the Government will not only pursue that ambition but set out how success will be measured. What indicators will be used to assess whether partnership working is preventing homelessness and rough sleeping, and how will outcomes be monitored for those released early? How will examples of effective practice, such as those emerging in the north-east, be identified, evaluated and shared more widely?
Ultimately, the measure of success is not whether agencies work together but whether people leaving prison are able to rebuild stable, healthy and productive lives. Can the Minister ensure that any measures around the effectiveness of partnership working include regional outcomes, so that we can understand both what is working in areas such as the north-east and where further support might be needed?
The 31 May article in the Guardian by Jessica Murray, to which both the Library briefing for this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, referred, told the story of a young man released after serving a 19-month sentence for assault. He was found dead in a house after taking prescription medicines and smoking crack cocaine because nowhere to live could be found for him by the local authority.
Another man of 48 with no known mental health problems could not be found even emergency accommodation on release and was found dead in a woodland after having to sleep in a tent. Another 49 year-old died of a drug overdose five days after release from HMP Swansea with nowhere to live. It is vital that accommodation be found. My noble friend Lady Bakewell is right to emphasise the importance of local authorities in the improvement of release as part of the improvement of rehabilitation. The account from the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, of Hayley’s experience shows how arrangements made by local authorities can fall far short of good practice.
I do not recite all these cases because they are dramatic, but because they are, or should be, at least in part avoidable. As we have heard, under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, prison and probation officers have a duty to refer anyone to local authorities if they are likely to be made homeless within 56 days. That means that preparing for prison release should happen early, as has been stressed by several speakers. There is a requirement for prisoners to give permission for such an approach to a local authority. I ask the Minister: what effect is that requirement having on the proper working of the scheme?
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, asked about the new duty for prisons and local authorities to collaborate. How will it work in practice? What planning has been done to ensure that the collaboration is real and effective? Will that collaboration be sufficiently resourced? What steps are being taken within the Prison Service and by probation officers to ensure that foreseeable homelessness can be avoided? How much is done before release to ensure that all prisoners have somewhere to go?
The Prison Reform Trust advises prisoners to seek advice from housing advisers or offender managers in good time before release. Given the incapacity of some prisoners, their unwillingness, or even a misplaced optimism when they are soon to be released, what steps can we take to ensure that that advice is tendered in time? Is enough advantage taken of the option for governors to help prisoners pre-release, with payments made directly to accommodation providers for short-term accommodation when that is all that is available?
I will add two points that have come out of this debate. First, there seems to be unanimity that Friday releases must end. They are impractical, dangerous and cause many of these problems. Secondly, I know that the noble Lord is interested in seeking to find arrangements whereby the location of prisoners is suitable for their release. It is no good being released in the north-east if all your family contacts and prospects are in the south-west. Proximity of prisons to family contacts is of crucial importance.