Where are they all going to go? Burnham admits Government funding may not be enough to fulfil rough sleeping pledge in early test for devolution agenda as he puts it in hands of local mayors
Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham has acknowledged that Government funding may fall short of what is needed to meet Labour's pledge to end rough sleeping, as responsibility for tackling the problem is handed to local mayors. The admission comes as an early test of the Government's devolution agenda, which relies on regional leaders to deliver national homelessness targets using resources allocated from Westminster.
Burnham questioned where rough sleepers would ultimately be housed if funding proves insufficient to provide adequate accommodation, highlighting concerns about capacity within Greater Manchester. The situation underscores the practical challenges facing mayors as they take on greater powers and responsibilities under devolution, with rough sleeping serving as a key indicator of whether the funding settlements accompanying these new duties are sufficient to achieve the Government's stated goals.
- Burnham warns funding may not meet rough sleeping pledge targets
- Devolution puts homelessness responsibility in mayors' hands
- Case seen as early test of Government's devolution strategy
New here? Start with this
Andy Burnham is the elected mayor of Greater Manchester, one of several regional mayors who lead England's devolved city-regions. Devolution is the process of transferring powers and money from central Government in Westminster to these regional authorities, on the idea that local leaders are better placed to tackle local problems. Rough sleeping, meaning people sleeping on the streets rather than in housing or shelters, is one of the areas being handed over in this way.
The Labour Government has made a national commitment to end rough sleeping, and is relying on mayors like Burnham to deliver this using funding passed down from central Government. This arrangement is being watched closely because it tests whether devolution can actually work in practice: whether local leaders, given the responsibility, are also given enough money and resources to succeed.
The issue matters because rough sleeping is a highly visible measure of whether this funding and power-sharing arrangement between Westminster and regional mayors is working. If mayors cannot deliver on national pledges because the money is insufficient, it raises broader questions about how devolution is being funded across England.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the devolution approach argue that mayors and local partners understand their areas' housing markets, support services and rough sleeper populations far better than officials in Whitehall, and are therefore better placed to target funding effectively and design solutions such as Housing First schemes tailored to local need. They contend that pairing funding with clear local accountability sharpens incentives for efficient delivery and innovation, and that devolution more broadly should be judged on whether it produces better outcomes than centralised administration, not simply on whether every pound requested is granted. On this view, Burnham's candour about funding pressures is itself evidence that devolved leaders are taking the target seriously and testing whether it is deliverable, rather than a reason to abandon the approach.
The case against
Critics, including Burnham himself, argue that handing mayors responsibility for ending rough sleeping without matching resources risks setting local leaders up to fail while allowing central government to distance itself from a national shortfall in affordable housing, treatment beds and welfare support. They point out that goodwill and local knowledge cannot conjure accommodation that does not exist, so if funding proves insufficient, rough sleepers may simply have nowhere to go regardless of how well mayors manage what they are given. On this view, devolving accountability for an underfunded pledge amounts to transferring political risk downward without transferring the means to succeed, undermining trust in both the pledge and the devolution agenda more broadly.