A new criminal justice bill seeks to further criminalise homelessness in the United Kingdom despite a vote to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, a 200-year old law that means “vagabonds” caught for the crime of homelessness can be fined or imprisoned, or subject to other such derogatory punishments. I was convicted of the crime of homelessness myself around 2013/14 and it is a mark on my criminal record that will stay with me for life, all because I wasn’t fortunate enough to have a place to call home when I was seventeen years old. The act seeks to deter “nuisance” rough sleeping and begging which, in principle, sounds great but in practice will further segregate and isolate the most vulnerable members of society.

I was invited to talk on the Stephen Nolan with Connor Phillips on BBC Radio 5 Live, I was invited on to their show on Sunday 7th April 2024 to discuss the bill. You can catch the show in full on BBC Sounds or listen below:
**

What I expected to be an in-depth discussion about homelessness and the Criminal Reform Bill turned out to be a panel discussion with myself, the CEO of St Mungo’s homelessness charity and Olly, who also experienced long-term homelessness. The show turned into a discussion of our experiences of homelessness and how we feel about the bill, but it didn’t quite get into the nitty-gritty of the bill and its impacts and why it is posing such a risk to the homeless communities in the UK. So I decided, rather than waste the opportunity to campaign against this bill, instead I’ll share the notes I intended to use during the show which were completely disregarded because we didn’t have time in such a short segment to engage in a meaningful discussion, in fact the talk-show element where we invite listeners to comment didn’t even happen on the day of the interview, it happened several days later where panellists were not on air to respond; it would be nice to really engage the public and open up discussion about this bill (and all other proposed new legislation, because we need to be making sure legislation is made in our best interests and not the best interests of our politicians and commerce at our expense).

The bill has sparked backlash from homelessness charities across the board and the Conservative party have seen more than 40 MPs rebel against the bill including organisations such as The Big Issue, Shelter and St Mungo’s.

Who is Andrew Hill and why am I qualified to talk about the Criminal Justice Bill?

I’d describe myself as a community advocate and I’m deeply involved in supporting individuals facing housing and homelessness challenges, advocating for education and welfare, and addressing food inequality through a non-profit organisation’s food bank initiative. Previously, I served as a trustee for a charity focusing on empowering adults with autism through education and independence skills. My commitment to charitable endeavours stems from my personal experience of being homeless for six years due to family issues, during which I found support and now strive to give back. Leicester YMCA played a massive part in helping me to turn my life around, helping me turn things around before it was too late. With their support and that of my current partner and some incredible friends and their mums when I was a homeless youth, I overcame homelessness and pursued higher education, earning my bachelor’s and master’s degrees in business and law related fields. Whilst completing my education, I started social enterprise businesses with a view to help those struggling with homelessness to earn an income, in a similar format to the Big Issue but it turned out to be unviable, I then opened a letting agency with the intention of housing people who are homeless and providing good quality homes and protecting the most vulnerable tenants in the private rented sector.

Vagrancy Conviction

During my years of homelessness, I found myself convicted of vagrancy; the crime of being homeless. I was bailed to a hostel and sentenced to an electronic tag, restricted to my bedroom for 12 hours a day because I had chosen to sleep in a privately owned car park, I was also given a fine which, being a rough sleeper, if I could afford to pay a fine, I probably wouldn’t have been sleeping rough in the first place; I never paid the fine and I never heard any more about it. The police came mob-handed and arrested me on suspicion of burglary and after several hours in a police cell, the charges were lowered to vagrancy because it was clear I didn’t intend to commit an offence but an offence of vagrancy had been committed because I wasn’t in the carpark for a “lawful purpose”. This was the first time I had faced the injustice of the law and I attribute the petty crime that followed to be as a result of peer pressure and resentment at our criminal justice system.

Criminal Justice Bill

Points:

• Overview of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill:

• Addresses begging, rough sleeping, and antisocial behaviour.

• Allows authorities to intervene with rough sleepers causing nuisance.

• Imposes fines or imprisonment for non-compliance.

• Powers to address interference with access to work or education.

> But the implications of how the bill proposes to achieve these aims will negatively impact some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

• Existing Powers (Public Order Offences and Vagrancy Act):

• Police already possess similar powers.

• Lack of uninterrupted sleep rights for homeless individuals.

• • • Despite voting to repeal the 200 year old vagrancy act appearing to intend to decriminalise homelessness, ministers are replacing the vagrancy act with similar legislation.

• Personal experience with the consequences of vagrancy.

• Concerns with the Criminal Justice Bill:

• Fines and imprisonment are not a solution to homelessness

• • • • If a person sleeping rough could afford a £2500 fine, they probably wouldn’t be sleeping rough and rough sleepers should not have to go to prison and gain a criminal record to receive support into housing.

• Pushing homelessness issue under the carpet instead of addressing the underlying causes.

• Criminalising homelessness exacerbates rather than solves homelessness because having a criminal record makes access to employment and education more difficult.

• Alternative Solutions are available:

• Emphasis on providing access and support for suitable accommodation. The cost saving benefits to the criminal justice system could contribute to the overall expense of restoring services that are critical to tackling underlying social issues associated with homelessness.

• Addressing Nuisance Begging:

• Acknowledgment of addressing nuisance begging. There are nuisance beggars and organised groups of beggars who are “sent out to work”, for lack of a better term, by somebody else who stands to make financial gain (these aren’t to be confused with groups of beggars who share the money donated to them amongst each other).

• Critique of the subjective nature of “distress” in the legislation; a person feeling uncomfortable that homelessness exists around them should not take away another person’s right to use a public space appropriately and for a homeless person, sleeping and resting in public spaces is appropriate because they have nowhere else to go.

• Rough sleepers would absolutely welcome the opportunity to swap their living situation for anybody who has the opportunity to go home and sleep without fear of being beaten up or urinated on whilst they sleep.

• Repealing the Vagrancy Act:

• Disappointment with replacing it with identical legislation.

• Conclusion:

• Ministers must focus on resolving underlying causes of socio-economic issues.

• Legislation alone cannot address complex issues like homelessness, drug addiction, and sex work.

The Criminal Justice Reform Bill intends “to make provision about begging, rough sleeping and anti-social behaviour”. It comes across as a well thought out document which states where a person or group is sleeping rough or intending to sleep rough and whilst doing so cause a nuisance, the police or local authority can move them on and should they refuse, they risk being fined or even sent to prison. The bill also gives powers to move people on if they’re causing interference with access to places of work or education.

The problem is that the police already have the powers to move people on, rough sleepers are regularly woken up and told to move because the right to uninterrupted sleep doesn’t exist unless you have a roof over your head.

The bill intends to replace the Vagrancy Act, which criminalises homelessness with very similar consequences, fines and imprisonment. When I was convicted of vagrancy, I was sentenced to be on electronic tag and confined for 12 hours a day in a small bedroom of a bail hostel. I had been caught sleeping in a privately owned car park and the police came mob-handed; it was reported as a burglary taking place when actually it was just me trying to settle down for the night.

In a period where we’re in a national housing crisis, a cost of living crisis and we’re seeing homelessness services being reduced and have done so for the last decade since I was homeless, it isn’t correct that we are criminalising the most vulnerable, unluckiest members of society simply because they can’t afford a roof over their head and the temporary or social housing accommodation isn’t available for them to be able to achieve the same standard of living as we all should enjoy as a bare minimum.

Giving fines to homeless people isn’t the way to resolve the issue of homelessness and ultimately that’s what this is. It’s a way of pushing homelessness under the carpet; if you can’t see the problem, the problem doesn’t exist. But at the end of the day, if a person who is sleeping rough could afford to pay a £2500 fine then they probably wouldn’t be sleeping rough in the first place. And sending them to prison isn’t going to change the fact that they’re still going to be homeless when they get out, sure they’ll have additional housing support but why does it have to take a prison sentence to be able to access that support? Save the taxpayer money and bypass the prison sentence which is only going to set them back further with a criminal record when it comes to employment.

As far as the Criminal Justice Bill is concerned, the consequences proposed are only going to serve to make the problems homeless communities face more difficult for them to manage. It needs to be carefully considered whether continuing to criminalise homelessness is going to solve homelessness, or whether providing access and support into suitable accommodation and to tackle the social issues associated with homelessness including drug and alcohol dependency, a lack of budgeting skills, poor social skills, etc.

The bill also address nuisance begging, which is a good thing but it isn’t without flaws. Nuisance begging is any form of begging that can cause distress, amongst other things, and the term “distress” is subjective to the person feeling distressed; a local business owner who feels their customers might find a rough sleeper with an upturned hat on the floor collecting spare change unsightly and may become distressed at the impact it may have on their shop’s image – this is through no fault or action of the individual whose unlucky enough to call an empty shop doorway home for tonight and at that point, if they refuse to comply with an order to move, they are guilty of an offence. The subjectivity of the proposed legislation means that it is likely to be abused. This same subjectivity applies for the wording relating to rough sleeping too.

Despite voting to repeal the Vagrancy Act, it looks like they’re simply replacing it with identical legislation. That defeats the purpose of repealing an outdated law.

Ministers must realise that the solution to socio-economic issues such as homelessness, drug addiction and sex work isn’t through the criminalising these individuals and instead must address and resolve the underlying causing of these issues. They cannot brush it away with legislation.

Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988

Points:

• Overview of Section 21 Evictions:
  • Commonly known as “No fault evictions.”
  • Allows landlords to evict tenants outside fixed term tenancy with two months’ notice.
  • Landlords can apply for court order for possession without providing a reason.
  • Often used to avoid complications of fault-based evictions.
• Reasons for Use:
  • Used to evict bad tenants or those unable to afford rent.
  • May be used when the landlord requires possession for other purposes.
  • Used by landlords to facilitate tenants’ access to affordable social housing.
• Interaction with Homelessness Reduction Act:
  • Requires local authorities to support eligible homeless individuals into temporary accommodation within 56 days.
  • Time limit coincides with Section 21 eviction notice period.
• Challenges with Local Authority Response:
  • Local authorities may not accept homelessness declaration immediately.
  • Often advise tenants to wait until bailiffs remove them from the property.
  • the 56-day time limit starts from acceptance of homelessness declaration.
• Impact on Homeless Individuals:
  • Lack of immediate, emergency temporary accommodation.
  • Forces individuals to sleep rough in public places.
  • Funding cuts contribute to unavailability of emergency accommodation.
• Criticisms and Call for Action:
  • Criminalization of homelessness isn’t fair or effective.
  • Funding cuts by elected officials exacerbate the issue.
  • Repealing the Vagrancy Act is essential to stop criminalising homelessness.

Section 21 evictions are commonly referred to as “No fault evictions”, the section 21 process allows landlords to evict tenants outside of their fixed term tenancy with two months notice before applying for a court order for possession without any reason provided they have complied with their obligations as a landlord. They’re used by landlords to evict bad tenants without the cost and complications of section 8 “fault-based” evictions, this includes rent arrears and breaches of tenancy amongst other grounds. They might be used because the landlord genuinely requires possession of the property for other uses including to move into themselves. They’re also used by landlords whose tenants can’t afford their rent anymore but require themselves to be at risk of homelessness for the local authority to assist them into more affordable social housing.

When a person presents to the local authority as at risk of homelessness, the homelessness reduction act obligates the local authority to take action and support a person who is eligible for support into temporary accommodation within 56 days; this time limit coincides with the notice period.

However, routinely it is the case that the local authority will not accept a declaration of homelessness and will advise the tenant to wait until bailiffs remove them from the property, at the expense of the landlord, before they will assist them.

The local authority has 56 days to act which coincides with the Section 21 eviction notice period however, this time limit only coincides from the day they accept the homelessness declaration stating the person is at risk of homelessness. When the person is removed by bailiffs and present again as homeless, the 56 days timescale starts then and, often, the local authority is unprepared and immediate, emergency temporary accommodation is unavailable. This forces people to sleep rough; when there is nowhere else to go, shop doorways, parks, car parks and other public places are the only places left. The reason emergency accommodation is unavailable is due to funding cuts voted for by the councillors and MPs we elect. To marginalise these people and make them feel like criminals isn’t fair when if the funding and services was available, the nuisance rough sleeping and begging section of the Criminal Reform Bill wouldn’t even be a consideration. The vagrancy act would be repealed and with it the criminalisation of homelessness.