Scrapping the Vagrancy Act won’t end the criminalisation of rough sleeping

Earlier this month, the government committed to repealing the Vagrancy Act 1824, a 200-year-old law that made rough sleeping and begging criminal offences in England and Wales. It is a long overdue move, especially as street homelessness continues to rise: an estimated 4,667 people slept rough on a given night last autumn, which was up 20% from 2023, and 164% since 2010. While hailed as a “monumental campaign win” by Crisis, repealing the Vagrancy Act alone will not end the criminalisation of street homelessness, however. 

It is hard to believe a law passed just after the Napoleonic Wars is still on the books in 2025, but the Vagrancy Act has persisted through two centuries of governments and legislative changes. Over time, large parts of the act have been repealed, but two crucial provisions remain, targeting behaviours associated with street homelessness: section three, which criminalises ‘begging’, and section four, which makes it an offence to ‘sleep out’. Punishment for breaching either of these statutes includes a £1,000 fine or prosecution.  

Since the early 2010s, convictions for breaching the Vagrancy Act have been decreasing, but the statute has still been used informally to move people experiencing street homelessness, like a widely criticised throwing away of tents and belongings in Camden in 2023. 

While the government’s promise to repeal the Vagrancy Act is a welcome step, as a researcher who studies the use of anti-social behaviour powers, I think there’s a risk it may become largely symbolic. This is because the decline in its enforcement has been accompanied by a growing use of other powers, particularly, public spaces protection orders (PSPOs), which face less scrutiny, accountability, and regulation. 

PSPOs are used by local authorities to address anti-social behaviour in public spaces. They contain vague rules and requirements on acceptable conduct, and punishment currently includes a fixed-penalty notice (FPN) of up to £100 or a fine of up to £1,000. Troublingly, any behaviour can be included within a PSPO provided it is perceived as causing a “detrimental effect on the quality of life of others”, and the central government provides no oversight on the types of PSPOs in existence nor their rate of enforcement.  

This has led to these orders being used disproportionately to target people sleeping on the streets, especially after the Home Office removed guidance advising against it when the last government proposed the Criminal Justice Bill.

My own research discovered that PSPOs were introduced to address the conduct of vaguely described “nuisance”, “career,” or “aggressive” beggars. Work by my colleagues found that, similar to the Vagrancy Act, PSPOs were used by policing bodies to informally regulate the behaviour of people experiencing street homelessness.

Read more:

• These activists are putting parking tickets on homeless tents to make an important point
• Meet the lawyers stepping in to help homeless people rebuild: ‘People don’t know their rights’
• I spent more than 20 years homeless and battling addiction. Giving me a home turned my life around

At the same time, the government is in the process of enacting the Crime and Policing Bill, which contains provisions that will target those most vulnerable in society. The bill proposes raising FPNs for PSPO breach to £500. It is known that people experiencing street homelessness are unable to pay financial penalties like this, and they are not deterrents for conducting behaviours.

Our research shows that failure to pay an FPN can lead to a more severe criminal behaviour order, which carries the risk of imprisonment if breached. My concern is that the Crime and Policing Bill could lead to a cycle of criminalisation for some individuals.

The focus should not be on punitive laws to manage rough sleeping, but on policies that prevent it. The government should invest in understanding street homelessness in several ways:

First, there should be widespread adoption of a Housing First approach, which has been established and successful in Finland. Its potential in the UK has been proven through Housing First pilots in Greater Manchester, Liverpool and the West Midlands. In these areas, 34% of people experiencing street homelessness reported involvement in anti-social behaviour before entering Housing First. This figure more than halved after 12 months of support. 

Second, trauma-informed approaches should be adopted more widely. These recognise that many people experiencing street homelessness have complex, often traumatic, histories. In South Yorkshire, for example, a housing association embedded a trauma-informed counsellor into their Housing First team for 18 months between 2020-21. Such roles should be commonplace across the country. 

Third, long-term support is essential to sustain housing and prevent repeat homelessness. This includes wraparound services such as mental health care, substance use treatment, employment support, and tenancy sustainment. Charities and non-governmental organisations already deliver these services effectively at the local level. What is needed now is a sustained investment to embed these approaches into statutory services and move away from enforcement-led responses that often exacerbate vulnerability. 

Dr Benjamin Archer is a senior lecturer in law, based in the Institute of Law and Justice at Sheffield Hallam University.

Promises are easy to break. Sign Big Issue’s petition for a Poverty Zero law and help us make tackling poverty a legal requirement, not just a policy priority.

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. Big Issue exists to give homeless and marginalised people the opportunity to earn an income. To support our work buy a copy of the magazine or get the app from the App Store or Google Play.