Rough sleeping in a pedestrian subway

Rough sleeping in a pedestrian subway

Published November 02, 2026

by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Joseph Zammit McKeon

Abroad rough sleeping in pedestrian subways raises important questions on human dignity, homelessness, public safety, the responsibilities of public authorities, and the right of the public to use public spaces without constraint. 

In Malta the issue can be particularly sensitive because the few pedestrian subways that we have were specifically intended to provide pedestrians with safe passage beneath busy roads. Were these subways to become shelters for homeless persons, two legitimate concerns arise: the dignity of the person who sleeps there, and the safety and discomfort of pedestrians.

Central

But the central question is not simply whether a person should be permitted to sleep in a pedestrian subway. It is how public authorities should respond when a person has been reduced to seek shelter in a place that was never intended for that purpose.  An approach grounded on enforcement alone risks moving vulnerable people from one location to another without addressing their circumstances.  Likewise ignoring the problem may compromise the interests and expectations of legitimate users.

Sensitivity

The issue has become sensitive and all the more relevant following an incident recently reported involving a person found sleeping in the pedestrian subway beneath St Anne Street in Floriana, the locality where I was born and lived for many years.

The Hon Minister for Home Affairs and Security publicly acknowledged that the police intervened – rightly so - because a subway is not intended for sleeping.  He further added that the person concerned had been provided with shelter.

The provision of shelter for the person involved is a positive act in itself. However, an intervention of that nature, on its own, does not resolve the broader questions of housing insecurity, access to emergency accommodation, preventive social services and continuity of care.  Although the matter caught the attention of the media, one cannot exclude that there are other situations of rough sleeping that have not yet been brought to the public attention.

Challenge

The Floriana incident should bring about a responsible and reflective debate on homelessness.  If the issue is considered with a “stop gap” approach, then medium and long-term solutions will be difficult to plan and implement.  The provision of temporary accommodation, although important, requires a decisive approach that determines what is required to prevent a person from returning to rough sleeping. 

Vulnerability is difficult to resolve without a holistic approach.  Nonetheless without safeguarding dignity and care as priorities will add additional difficulty to address the problem effectively.  Witnessing a person sleeping in a subway should be a wake-up call for a caring society. As a matter of principle, under no circumstance, should a person not have a “home” which is not one and the same as a “house”.  Nor should a person, because he/she does not have a home, be driven by despair to resort to rough sleeping anywhere, including a pedestrian subway.

Removing a person from a subway may restore its intended use. Good.  Nonetheless that fact does not in itself mean that the matter has found a definitive solution. The Floriana incident confronts society with the concerned reality that there are persons, who are present in our localities, and whose personal circumstances have become so tragic that a passage beneath a road may appear to offer to them the only available “roof over their head”.

Effectiveness

Prompt and reasonable action by the public authorities is positive because the authorities have to be accountable and have to keep high up in their priorities the confidence and trust of the public.  That is why transparency is so important and a crucial feature of democratic governance that requires the exercise of care especially where vulnerable persons are concerned. 

The provision of shelter to a person sleeping rough is important. However, emergency shelter and accommodation should not be regarded as the final stage of a public administrative response.  A person who is provided with shelter should be reasonably be placed in a position by the State not to have to resort to desperate measures that keep that person exposed to the very difficulties that prompted original action by the State. 

A successful action is not necessarily one that makes the homeless less visible but that which makes being homeless less likely to happen.

Mandate

Within the mandate of the Ombudsman, striving towards the common good, especially where the administration of the public affairs is concened, inevitably has to come to terms with the vulnerability of persons. 

Repeated cases of rough sleeping in public infrastructure may justify considerations of whether existing arrangements for identifying vulnerable persons, coordinating services and providing emergency accommodation are sufficient and effective enough.

Investigations, scrutiny or even particular attention of this nature are not intended to attribute blame of any sort to anyone, but to highlight a social problem that should be addressed quickly and not be permitted to run out of control.

Because independent oversight should never be considered as an operational hindrance, it is only fair and reasonable to point out that the effectiveness of the action of the State should be evaluated not only by whether an immediate situation has been promptly acted upon, but also whether steps have been taken to achieve a sustainable effect for future durable action.

Prevention

The appearance of rough sleeping in a pedestrian subway should prompt reflection on the importance of prevention.  Public authorities cannot be expected to eliminate every personal difficulty or guarantee that no person will ever experience the despair of being homeless or sleeping rough.  Nevertheless, there should be in place systems that can identify increasing vulnerability in order to avert situations of complete despair.

Within this context, unfair comments by the public on persons who are in real difficulty should be ruled out because the vulnerability of a person should never become an excuse for hostility, discrimination or public ridicule.

Conclusion

Public order and human dignity are not competing principles. They are complementary obligations that are crucial in democratic governance.  The success of responsive public governance should not be measured solely by the absence of rough sleepers, including in pedestrian subways, but by having in place effective safeguards that prevent people from being driven to seek shelter in places that offend human dignity.

This article was published on newsbook.com.mt on 2 November