The UK government finds itself embroiled in a contentious battle over its proposed legislation to address homelessness as it faces internal dissent from its backbenchers regarding plans to “criminalise” homelessness. The heart of the matter lies in the Criminal Justice Bill, which aims to replace the 200-year-old Vagrancy Act of 1824—a law that currently deems rough sleeping illegal.
Despite the government’s previous vote in favour of repealing the Vagrancy Act two years ago, rough sleeping remains an offence under this archaic law. The new Criminal Justice Bill introduces provisions that empower police officers to forcibly move rough sleepers and includes measures like “nuisance prevention orders.” However, the devil lies in the details: the government’s definition of “nuisance begging” is broad and encompasses behaviours such as sleeping in doorways, emitting an “excessive smell,” or merely appearing as if one intends to sleep on the streets.
Not surprisingly, Labour—the main opposition party—has vehemently opposed these measures. Alex Norris, Labour’s shadow policing minister, minced no words in his condemnation. In a statement, he said, “With soaring serious violence, plummeting charging rates, and rock-bottom levels of confidence in policing, the criminal justice bill was a chance to address crucial community safety issues. Instead, the government has chosen to target homeless individuals and anyone who emits an odour. These are the twisted priorities of a government out of touch with reality.”
In defence of its stance, a government spokesperson said that their commitment to ending rough sleeping remains unwavering. They emphasised that they have already published a strategy aimed at tackling the root causes of homelessness. The spokesperson clarified, “Nobody should face criminalisation simply because they lack a place to live. That’s precisely why we pledged to repeal the outdated Vagrancy Act, which dates back to 1824. Our forthcoming legislation will focus on supporting people to transition off the streets while ensuring their dignity and rights.”
As the debate rages on, the fate of rough sleepers hangs in the balance. While the government insists it seeks compassionate solutions, critics argue that the proposed measures risk exacerbating an already dire situation. The battle lines are drawn, and the outcome will shape the lives of those who find themselves without shelter in a society grappling with complex challenges.
