It’s brilliant that this petition is gaining momentum. Thank you for signing and sharing the link. It is important for Luke Hall MP and other decision makers not to lose sight of the urgency of rough sleepers’ needs.
Alongside supportive messages, I have also been sent objections to this petition. It is healthy to have discussion. I would like to reply to the ‘top three’ kinds of objections I’ve received:
1. An objection based on practicality: “we cannot afford to house all rough sleepers” or “rough sleeping cannot be eliminated”
It costs more not to house rough sleepers, than to house them. To quote a careful analysis completed in 2018 , for every £1.00 invested in housing a rough sleeper, the economy benefits by £3.20. Why? A person in safe, settled housing can register with a GP, rather than rely on A&E as a last resort when they are sick or injured. A person who is safely housed can gain and more easily keep their job. A person in stable accommodation can more easily access and benefit from specialist support for whatever needs they have. This might include psychological support following abuse/neglect, addressing substance misuse problems or getting back on one’s feet after leaving the armed forces.
There is no easy path from rough sleeping to a fulfilling life off the street. But there are effective, evidenced steps the Government can consider. Here are three examples. First, the Government has shown that large numbers of rough sleepers can be found temporary accommodation in a short period of time. This should continue, to allow professionals time to organise stable, long-term accommodation. Second, every country in the UK could abolish ‘priority need’ (see below): Scotland took the lead with this in 2013. Third, the ‘rapid rehousing’ or ‘housing first’ model has achieved remarkable success in Finland and many pilots across England.
2. An objection to do with lifestyle choice: “some people prefer or choose to live on the street”
For most rough sleepers this is plainly untrue. Rough sleepers – existing and former – will clearly tell you this themselves.
Why have some rough sleepers turned down offers of temporary accommodation in recent weeks? Some rough sleepers have very challenging life histories: nearly four in five people who are street homeless experienced trauma in their childhood. When a person has been mistreated, or let down by authority figures multiple times, it takes a long time to learn to trust other people. This is a recognised phenomenon that has parallels in other contexts where people feel isolated/ashamed/fearful: consider the well-known point that women leaving abusive relationships often struggle in these relationships for years, before seeking help. From the outside, it may look ‘obvious’ for a person to accept help off the street. But for some rough sleepers, it is a big step to accept help from a stranger and to have hope in a better future.
Why have some left temporary accommodation and returned to the street? In ordinary times, people supported into temporary accommodation off the street would move into a specially designed hostel, with trained staff on site to support them. It can be difficult for former rough sleepers to adjust to new surroundings, and the problems which led to homelessness in the first place can still need patient problem-solving. The sudden provision of thousands of hotel rooms to former rough sleepers has been necessary – the hostel spaces do not currently exist – but this does not mean that charities and local authorities immediately have additional staff to support people in their new context. Change has been difficult for many of us in lockdown, even with the advantage of a safe home. Even more of a change is the move from living in the street to quarantine conditions. It is important for people to have multiple chances to improve their lives.
3. An objection that some do not deserve housing off the street: “the Government would have helped them if they deserved it” or “rough sleepers take part in criminal or anti-social activities” or “rough sleepers are faking it, as a begging scam”
Not everyone is entitled in law to housing help from the Government. To qualify for Government help with housing, a street homeless person must pass a test called ‘priority need’. ‘Failing’ this test is a big knock to a person’s confidence, when they urgently need help. People who do not qualify for Government housing help are still vulnerable in many ways. For example, rough sleepers are 60 times more likely than others to go to A&E.
The vast majority of rough sleepers do not engage in criminal or anti-social behaviour. It is important to keep issues separate: criminal or anti-social behaviour must be tackled, but it does not follow that anyone deserves to deprived of anything essential and life-sustaining, whether that be food, clean drinking water, healthcare, or indeed safe accommodation. Rough sleepers are themselves much more likely than others to suffer violence, abuse or anti-social behaviour.
Similarly, pretending to be a rough sleeper is very unusual. Identifying fraudulent activity makes a case for anti-fraud work (and this work happens). Identifying fraud does not make a case for withholding an essential service. By analogy, the need to fight fraud in the NHS does not take away from the need for the NHS.
Much work lies ahead. Returning to the heart of this petition, on 27 March, Luke Hall MP, Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, called on local authorities in England to immediately accommodate all rough sleepers. He spelled out the Government’s approach as aiming ‘ultimately on preventing deaths’. Rough sleeping exacts a heavy toll on health and life-span. So it will not be consistent with ‘preventing deaths’ for rough sleeping to be allowed to resume after the lockdown. Please help to share the link to this petition. We must not fail the people sleeping on our streets.