You are here:

House of Commons Library

Rough Sleepers and Anti-Social Behaviour (England)

Published Tuesday, February 27, 2018

This briefing paper discusses the use of anti-social behaviour powers to ban activities often associated with rough sleeping, and concerns that an increase in the use of these powers is criminalising homelessness and is not addressing the root cause of the problem.

Jump to full report >>

The number of people sleeping rough in England has more than doubled from 1,768 in 2010 to 4,751 in 2017. Rough sleeping is often associated with nuisance activities such as begging, street drinking and anti-social behaviour. Homelessness is a complex issue and entrenched homelessness presents particular difficulties; addictions and criminal and offending behaviour may be a symptom of homelessness as well as an underlying cause.

Nuisance activities can have a negative impact on local communities. The police and local authorities have a range of powers to tackle these activities. However, voluntary sector organisations have voiced concerns that an increase in the use of these powers is criminalising homelessness and not addressing the root cause of the problem.

1. Powers to tackle anti-social behaviour

1.1   Criminal law

Begging is an offence under section 3 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 (as amended). It is a recordable offence. The maximum sentence is a fine at level 3 on the standard scale (currently £1000). Other provisions also criminalise begging behaviour: wilfully blocking free passage along a highway is an offence contrary to section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended), punishable by a level 3 fine. Using threatening or abusive words or behaviour is an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which also carries a level 3 fine.

In response to a Freedom of Information request, the Crown Prosecution Service in July 2016 released figures showing the number of prosecutions under the Vagrancy Act 1824 in each of the last 10 years. The data shows the number of prosecutions under section 3 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 increased from 1510 in 2006-07 to 2365 in 2015-16.

1.2   Civil measures

Following its introduction by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) was used extensively by local authorities attempting to address problems associated with begging.

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 replaced the ASBO, and other disparate powers developed to tackle a range of anti-social behaviour, with six new and much broader powers designed to be faster and more efficient to use. They include the following powers which may be used to deter anti-social behaviour:

  • Civil injunctions
  • Criminal Behaviour Orders
  • Community Protection Notice
  • Dispersal powers
  • Public Spaces Protection Order

 

1.3   Home Office guidance on anti-social behaviour powers

The Home Office published statutory guidance for frontline professionals in July 2014 to support the effective use of the new powers to tackle anti-social behaviour. The guidance was updated in December 2017 in the light of experience since the new powers were introduced.

The updated guidance emphasises “the importance of ensuring that the powers are used appropriately to provide a proportionate response to the specific behaviour that is causing harm or nuisance without impacting adversely on behaviour that is neither unlawful nor anti-social”. The guidance makes it clear that local authorities should not use Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) to target rough sleepers.

2.     Local authority use of anti-social behaviour powers

Advocates of PSPOs, and other enforcement measures, regard them as a useful tool to address localised problems with anti-social behaviour and ensure the safe-guarding of the wider community and public spaces. It is argued that it is the anti-social behaviours that can be associated with rough sleeping (aggressive begging, street drinking, leaving personal belongings in doorways etc.) that are targeted with PSPOs and not the rough sleepers themselves. The Government has asserted that the right safeguards are in place to ensure that PSPOs are used appropriately.

However, a survey of local authorities in England and Wales by the national homelessness charity Crisis in 2016 found that 36% (29 out of 81) of respondents had specifically targeted rough sleeping with enforcement measures. This was reported to be a response to increasing levels of rough sleeping alongside reported rises in anti-social behaviour such as begging and street drinking.

In some cases the use of PSPOs by local authorities to prohibit begging and other street activities has caused controversy, forcing authorities to deny they have sought to target rough sleepers.

A letter from the Leader of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to the Police and Crime Commissioner of Thames Valley Police urging the police to take action to address "anti-social behaviour, including aggressive begging and intimidation" in Windsor ahead of the Royal wedding in May 2018 has also focused national media attention on this issue.

3.     Criminalising rough sleeping?

Voluntary sector organisations have voiced concerns that the use of anti-social behaviour powers to tackle rough sleeping is criminalising homelessness and leaving vulnerable people in an even more marginalised position. According to Liberty, a Human Rights organisation, “PSPOs don’t alleviate hardship on any level. They are blunt instruments which fast-track so-called "offenders" into the criminal justice system". Liberty has urged the Government to rethink these powers: “handing hefty fines to homeless people … is obviously absurd, counterproductive and downright cruel”.

There is also a concern that enforcement activity in one area simply displaces street activity to another geographical area, and can sometimes lead to the displacement of activity (e.g. from begging into acquisitive crime). Moreover, it does not address the underlying causes of rough sleeping.

The national homelessness charity Crisis has called on councils to use enforcement measures against rough sleepers as a last resort, and to ensure that they are integrated with tailored support and accommodation. The Chief Executive of Crisis, Jon Sparkes, said:

We understand that councils and the police have to strike a balance between the concerns of local residents and the needs of rough sleepers, and where there’s genuine antisocial activity, it’s only right that they should intervene. Yet people shouldn’t be targeted simply for sleeping on the street. In fact, homeless people are far more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators, and rough sleepers are 17 times more likely to be victims of violence compared to the general public. They deserve better than to be treated as criminals simply because they have nowhere to live.  There is a time and place for enforcement, and as a last resort it can play an important role in helping people off the street. However, if it is used against a rough sleeper for genuinely antisocial behaviour then councils and police must make sure it is accompanied by accessible, meaningful support and accommodation to help that person escape the streets and rebuild their life. Without that support, they risk further marginalising rough sleepers and making it even harder for them to get help.

4.     Other deterrent measures

In addition to the criminal and civil measures outlined in Section 1 of the paper, a range of other less formal measures may be used by businesses, security companies and planners to deter rough sleeping, including:

Physical deterrents (sometimes referred to as ‘defensive architecture’): street furniture and the urban environment may include features such as spikes, curved or segregated benches, and gated doorways, to deter rough sleeping;

‘Wetting down’: – spraying and hosing down doorways/alleyways with water or cleaning products to stop rough sleepers using the space;

Noise pollution: sounds, such as loud music, are projected through speakers to deter rough sleepers;

Moving-on: security guards/enforcement agencies tell rough sleepers to move out of an area;

Diverted giving schemes: local authority sanctioned schemes that promote and advertise in begging hotspots asking members of the public to reconsider giving money to beggars and give to local charities instead.

These measures do not incur legal penalties or sanctions, but use of such measures is also controversial. A survey by the national homelessness charity Crisis in summer 2016 identified widespread use of such deterrent measures.

5.     Further information

The following Commons Library briefing papers may be of interest:

Rough sleeping (England) (SN02007) provides background information on the problem of rough sleeping and outlines Government policy on this issue.

Rough sleepers: access to services and support (England) (CBP07698) provides an overview of the support and services - including accommodation, health, welfare, training, employment and voter registration - that are available for rough sleepers in England, and the challenges rough sleepers can face in accessing them.

Anti-social behaviour- new provisions (SN06950) gives an overview of the powers stemming from the anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014.

Constituency Casework: Anti-Social Behaviour (CBP07270) provides information to assist MPs and their staff in dealing with enquiries from constituents regarding anti-social behaviour.

 

 

Commons Briefing papers CBP-7836

Authors: Hannah Cromarty; Pat Strickland

Topics: Anti-social behaviour, Homelessness

Share this page

Stay up to date

  • Subscribe to RSS feed Subscribe to Email alerts Commons Briefing papers

House of Commons Library

The House of Commons Library provides research, analysis and information services for MPs and their staff.