The repeal of the Vagrancy Act marked the end of legislation that had explicitly criminalised rough sleeping for almost two centuries. For people experiencing homelessness, and the sector more broadly, this is a significant and very welcome moment.

The Act may have appeared outdated or rarely used, but the most recent available Freedom of Information data tells a different story. Between 2019 and 2023, there were almost 2,500 arrests under the Vagrancy Act, including 620 arrests of young people aged 16 to 25. These figures make clear that the legislation was not simply a historic remnant, but a law that continued to have a real and damaging impact on people experiencing homelessness.

The repeal is an important step, especially because government responses can be really powerful in shaping public opinion. However, the repeal risks being largely a symbolic step as rough sleepers can still be criminalised through other routes. 

One such route was introduced in the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act of 2014 in the form of Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs), which can be used by local authorities or police to restrict certain behavior in public spaces. Activities that are prohibited in some orders include “lying down or sleeping, depositing materials used or intended for use as bedding, begging, consuming intoxicating substances, inconsiderate busking, bird feeding, and improper use of public toilets”. Despite the fact that Home Office guidance states that PSPOs should not be used to target people experiencing homelessness, frontline reports say otherwise. A Centrepoint survey of staff from 43 homelessness organisations found that 30% of respondents reported that they had supported someone who had been punished for breaching a PSPO in the last year. 

Similar concerns arise in relation to the Crime and Policing Act 2026. Whilst the Act replaces offences linked directly to rough sleeping with powers targeted at specific behaviours, it nevertheless introduces a range of enforcement measures that may continue to disproportionately affect people experiencing homelessness. These include Respect Orders (ROs) for persistent anti-social behaviour, new offences relating to organised and “aggressive” begging, extended dispersal powers allowing police to direct individuals to leave an area for up to 72 hours, and expanded closure notice powers. Although these powers are not intended to punish rough sleepers themselves, many of the behaviours they seek to regulate are closely associated with the realities of homelessness. 

As a result, the repeal of the Vagrancy Act does not necessarily mark the end of enforcement against people sleeping rough, but rather a shift in the legal mechanisms through which that enforcement may occur. 

There are therefore two important points to consider. 

• Criminalising homelessness does little to address its underlying causes. Contact with enforcement agencies does not necessarily lead to people experiencing homelessness accessing the support they need, while enforcement measures such as PSPOs do little to address the underlying factors that contribute to rough sleeping. Issuing fines or penalising behaviours associated with rough sleeping does not provide access to safe accommodation, alleviate financial hardship or address the complex circumstances that often underpin homelessness. In some cases, these approaches may instead exacerbate existing challenges by increasing debt, damaging trust in public services and creating further barriers to engaging with support. 
• The impact of the new legislation will ultimately depend on how enforcement powers are exercised in practice. The Crime and Policing Act introduces new enforcement powers that rely heavily on individual discretion of police officers and local authorities. Where broad powers are exercised without safeguards, there is a risk that behaviours closely associated with homelessness continue to be subject to enforcement in practice. The result of this could be that, while the legal basis has changed, the lived experience of many people rough sleeping will remain the same. 

The repeal of the Vagrancy Act should therefore be seen as an important starting point rather than the end of the work required. The focus must now be on ensuring that other enforcement powers are not used to criminalise homelessness by another name, while directing greater energy and investment towards interventions that can create meaningful and lasting change.

‍

‍