Bristol Council's Rough Sleeping Encampments Policy Consultation 2018 A Wasted Opportunity

You can hardly throw a stone at a dog in the street in Bristol without hitting a homeless person and every park has a tent or ten tucked away in the corner.  "What is the Council doing about it?" the people cry out and here's your answer: not much.


There isn't a lot the council can do, mind, but the current Rough Sleeper Policy being consulted on doesn't answer key questions and is written in vomit-inducing patronising language.


This article gives the proposed policy the kicking it deserves, suggests necessary improvements and hopefully won't make anyone feel like puking.  The author is currently a rough sleeper in an abandoned Bristol Council property.


You can read the draft policy, extra documents and fill in a survey here: https://bristol.citizenspace.com/communities/rough-sleeping-encampments-consultation/


The reason the Council has written this policy is homeless people living in tents on Council land, particularly public parks.  People - including rough sleepers want to know why and how the Council will evict people sleeping rough.


To give some idea of the scale the Council's despised Outreach Team - run by St Mungos - encountered over 700 rough sleepers in 2017. And most rough sleepers - this author included - had no contact with St Mungos during that time.  No-one knows how many people are sleeping rough in Bristol.  In the FAQs accompanying the draft policy the Council states 1200 - 1400 people sleep rough in Bristol each year but they don't give a source for this figure.  It sounds about right.  It's a big problem and it isn't going away.


So what does the new policy offer rough sleepers?  In vomit-inducing and repetitive language ("ensure we recognise that people and their circumstances are unique so that the support we offer them is tailored to fit the individual", "recognise that all circumstances are unique so that all outcomes are tailored to fit the individual", "have at its heart considerations that are person centred") the policy offers all rough sleepers a one-size-fits-all seven days in a hostel to be assessed by St Mungos.  And that's it.


Don't want to go into a hostel or don't want to work with St Mungo?  You get nothing.  After the seven days if you're judged out-of-area, intentionally homeless or there's no more spaces available to you, you get nothing.  Back on the streets you go.


This is a key problem: the proposed rough sleeper policy offers nothing at all to the vast majority of people who will continue rough sleeping because St Mungos and the hostels have nothing like the capacity to house the sheer numbers of rough sleepers.


Rough sleepers need: secure places to store their stuff, laundry facilities, showers, help getting ID and paperwork sorted, help getting work, debt advice and so on.  The proposed policy offers nothing, zip, nada, zilch.  Most people get themselves off the streets by their own back; the Council could help with this but hasn't got a clue how to do it. 

The proposed draft policy doesn't even include the key bit: when and how will people camped up in parks be evicted?  It's very vague, dedicating all of half-a-line to this important question: "...if it is necessary to take legal action to ensure that the area of land is used for its intended purposes... ".  So, er, if the Council feels it's necessary to evict people they'll evict people.  Wow - that really clarifies things.

Anyway, enough with the snarky ranting: two specific things the Council must put in their proposed policy: data protection and notice period for legal action.

The recent scandal ofSt Mungos illegally passing personal information on their clients to the UK Border Agency and lying about it has damaged relationships between rough sleepers and St Mungos.  This must be addressed in the policy.  I suggest "personal information on rough sleepers will not be passed to a third party without permission in writing from the client on each occasion information is to be passed on."

Currently when the Council takes legal action to evict rough sleepers from their land they always give the absolute minimum legal notice period - two working days.  This is unnecessary - encampments have often been in place for months or years - and denies vulnerable people the chance of getting legal advice.  I suggest "the Council will always give at least ten working days notice of possession hearings, injunction applications or similar legal action."


Please do respond to the Council's consultation - you're allowed a magnificent 500 words - which is online here https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/RoughSleeping/ until 26 August 2018.