By Alessandra Sciarra, Head of Policy and Public Affairs
On 29 June 2026, the Vagrancy Act 1824 was formally repealed in England and Wales. After more than 200 years, sleeping rough and begging are no longer criminal offences.
That is the right decision.
For too long, the law reflected an outdated view that homelessness was only a matter of individual decisions, without recognising the huge role that circumstances and public policy play. Repealing the Act removes one of the clearest symbols of that thinking.
But we should resist the temptation to see this as the end of the story. The real test is not whether we’ve abolished a law from another century. It’s whether the policies and services that replace it help more people leave homelessness behind.
The Vagrancy Act was introduced in 1824 in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, as Parliament responded to rising numbers of people living on the streets.
Its language reveals the assumptions that shaped it. People experiencing homelessness were described as “idle and disorderly” or “rogues and vagabonds”. Even in the nineteenth century, there were critics who argued that it was wrong to punish people simply because they had nowhere to sleep.
More than 200 years later, our understanding of homelessness has fundamentally changed.
We know that rough sleeping is rarely the result of a single event or personal choice. Family breakdown, poverty, trauma, poor mental health, insecure housing and wider economic pressures all play a role. Homelessness is not a character flaw. It is the consequence of circumstances that can affect anyone.
At Depaul UK, we’ve worked alongside young people experiencing homelessness for more than 40 years.
That is why prevention sits at the heart of our work. We believe homelessness has no place in society and that, in almost every case, it can be prevented through the right intervention at the right time.
A criminal record makes it harder to access housing, secure employment and rebuild stability. Those are precisely the things people need if they are to move out of homelessness permanently.
The repeal of the Vagrancy Act is therefore more than a symbolic change. It represents an important shift in how we understand homelessness and how we respond to it.
Just as importantly, it allows us to move away from language that stigmatises people towards language that recognises their dignity and their potential.
At the same time, we should acknowledge that the reality on the ground has always been more complex than the legislation itself.
In recent years, the Vagrancy Act was used relatively rarely. In some cases, police officers and outreach teams viewed it as a last-resort mechanism to engage people facing serious risks who had repeatedly declined support. This points to a much bigger issue.
The real question has never been whether we have the right enforcement powers. It is whether we have invested enough in the services that prevent homelessness and support people with the most complex needs.
Effective outreach depends on experienced practitioners, trauma-informed practice, trusted relationships and sustained investment. Without those things, changing the law alone will not change people’s lives.
The repeal also raises important questions about the powers that replace the Vagrancy Act.
Two new offences, trespassing with intent to commit an offence and arranging or facilitating begging for gain, under the Crime and Policing Act 2026, have effectively taken the place of parts of the Vagrancy Act. During scrutiny of the Crime and Policing Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights questioned whether the breadth and subjectivity of some provisions provided sufficient safeguards against disproportionate use.
There are also ongoing concerns about the use of Public Spaces Protection Orders and dispersal powers. Across the homelessness sector, organisations have highlighted cases where these powers have been used to move people on rather than address the reasons they are sleeping rough.
We should also pay close attention to how the new framework affects people seeking asylum and those with insecure immigration status, who may be particularly vulnerable to unintended consequences.
These issues deserve continued scrutiny. Repeal should never mean replacing one form of criminalisation with another.
This was rightly a moment for those organisations that led the campaign. Colleagues across the homelessness sector, led by Crisis, worked tirelessly over many years to achieve this outcome, and they deserve enormous credit. Depaul UK’s role is to contribute where our experience adds something distinctive.
For us, that means focusing on what happens next: whether prevention receives the investment it needs, whether outreach and supported accommodation are adequately funded, and whether the new legal framework is implemented in ways that genuinely improve outcomes for people experiencing homelessness.
The repeal of the Vagrancy Act closes a chapter in which homelessness was treated as a crime.
The next chapter should be about preventing homelessness wherever possible, responding earlier when people are at risk, and ensuring that nobody is punished simply because they have no home.
That is the challenge now facing policymakers, local authorities and the homelessness sector alike.
And that is the conversation I believe we should now be having.