Rough sleeping to be decriminalised as 200-year-old law scrapped in ‘landmark moment'
A 200-year-old law criminalising rough sleepers is to be scrapped in what has been hailed as a 'landmark moment'.
The Vagrancy Act, introduced in 1824, was designed to punish 'idle and disorderly persons, and rogues and vagabonds, in England'.
The government has confirmed that it will be repealed by spring next year.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, who is also Housing Secretary, said Labour is 'drawing a line under nearly two centuries of injustice towards some of the most vulnerable in society'.
The law was brought in to deal with rising homelessness after the Napoleonic Wars and the Industrial Revolution, and modern-day homeless charities have long called for it to be scrapped.
Campaigners said criminalising the most vulnerable has never been the answer, and instead, homelessness needs to be properly addressed through support for people who end up sleeping rough.
Figures published in April showed the number of people classed as living on the streets in London had risen by more than a third (38 per cent) year-on-year to 706 from 511.
According to the latest Combined Homelessness and Information Network (Chain) statistics, the total number recorded as sleeping rough in the capital was 4,427 for the three months to March 2025, which was a near-8 per cent increase from 4,118 for the same quarter last year.
Ms Rayner said: 'No one should ever be criminalised simply for sleeping rough and by scrapping this cruel and outdated law, we are making sure that can never happen again.'
Homelessness minister Rushanara Ali described the 'archaic' Act as 'neither just nor fit for purpose'.
'Scrapping the Vagrancy Act for good is another step forward in our mission to tackle homelessness in all its forms, by focusing our efforts on its root causes.'
The Government said new 'targeted measures will ensure police have the powers they need to keep communities safe – filling the gap left over by removing previous powers', and will be brought in through amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill.
These will be new offences of facilitating begging for gain and trespassing with the intention of committing a crime.
The Government said this will ensure organised begging – often facilitated by criminal gangs – remains an offence, meaning it is unlawful for anyone to organise others to beg by, for example, driving them places to do so.
Crisis chief executive Matt Downie said: 'This is a landmark moment that will change lives and prevent thousands of people from being pushed into the shadows, away from safety.'
He praised the Government for having 'shown such principled leadership in scrapping this pernicious Act'.
He said: 'We hope this signals a completely different approach to helping people forced onto the streets and clears the way for a positive agenda that is about supporting people who desperately want to move on in life and fulfil their potential. We look forward to assisting the UK Government with their forthcoming homelessness strategy to do exactly that.'
St Mungo's chief executive Emma Haddad said the Act's repeal 'cannot come soon enough' and called for a 'focus on tackling the health, housing and wider societal issues that are causing homelessness in the first place'.
Youth homelessness charity Centrepoint warned that a challenge will be 'ensuring that proposed amendments don't have the unintended consequences of punishing people instead of supporting them'.
Balbir Kaur Chatrik, the charity's director of policy and prevention, said: 'Criminalising the most vulnerable was never an effective solution and we look forward to working with the Government on its ending homelessness strategy to ensure people in this position are supported, not punished going forward.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
MPs back bill changes to prevent medics raising assisted dying with under-18s
Medics would not be allowed to raise assisted dying as an option with under-18s, and advertising it would be banned under changes backed by MPs on Friday before a final vote expected next week. The Commons voted on amendments to the assisted dying bill, which would legalise the option for terminally ill adults in England and Wales who have been told they have fewer than six months to live. The final Commons vote is scheduled on 20 June, with support and opposition finely balanced – and growing scrutiny over timelines, loopholes and who would ultimately deliver the system. A majority of MPs approved a clause tabled by Labour MP Meg Hillier, an opponent of the bill, to ensure health professionals cannot raise the topic of assisted dying with under-18s. A separate amendment from Hillier to bar health workers from bringing up assisted dying with adult patients before they have raised it themselves was voted down. There were impassioned interventions from both sides of the debate. Rupa Huq, the Labour MP for Ealing Central, said the cost-of-living crisis would make assisted dying 'quite attractive' to people who were struggling. 'We know that BAME communities have lower disposable household income than standard households, and you can just imagine relatives in a housing crisis wanting to speed up grandad's probate to get a foot on the ladder, or granny or nanny, ma or daddy even convincing themselves that, 'look, they'd be better off out of the way given the cost of care,'' Huq said. Caroline Voaden, the Liberal Democrat MP for South Devon, recalled the death of her husband, who she said had been 'in extreme pain' with terminal oesophageal cancer, and urged her colleagues to 'mind our language' after words like 'murder' were used. 'This is about helping people die in a civilised way and helping their families not go through a horrendous experience of watching a loved one die in agony,' Voaden said. MPs voted in favour of a proposal by Kim Leadbeater, who is sponsoring the bill, to ban advertisements about assisted dying. But they rejected a separate proposal from Labour MP Paul Waugh for tighter regulations which would have limited exceptions on Friday's amendments. Waugh said he hoped that 'enough MPs now realise that it is not fit for purpose'. The bill passed its first stage by a majority of 55 in November. Since then more than a dozen are thought to have switched sides to oppose the bill, though at least three have moved to support it. A number of other amendments were passed on Friday, including a provision for assisted dying deaths to not automatically be referred to a coroner and an attempt to regulate substances for use in assisted dying. Demonstrators for and against a change in the law gathered outside parliament to make their views known. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Opening the debate, Leadbeater said it was not about a choice between assisted dying or palliative care. 'Palliative and end-of-life care and assisted dying can and do work side by side to give terminally-ill patients the care and choice they deserve in their final days,' she said. As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally-ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the bill and any amendments, meaning they vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines. The government is neutral on the legislation. Stephen Kinnock, a health minister, said there had been more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent debating the proposals so far, and more than 500 amendments had been considered at committee stage earlier this year.
New Statesman
25 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The government is moving too slowly on AI
Photo by Jack Taylor / Getty Images for SXSW London When I first started grappling with the problem of AI and copyright as a minister in 2023, I grossly underestimated the difficulty: the two sides could surely be brought together to find compromises and workarounds. Sadly, it became ever clearer over months of talks that there was no mutually agreeable landing zone – we could satisfy the content creators or the AI labs, but not both. As the government approaches the first anniversary of its own forlorn attempts to find the elusive middle ground and temperatures rise on both sides, I've been urging them to take a different approach. First, let's think more clearly about where we want Jonathan Camrose Shadow minister for science, innovation and technology to get to. The eventual answer is surely a trusted, efficient marketplace for the use of copyrighted materials, where rights-holders can freely choose to license, sell or withdraw their property and developers can make rapid and affordable commercial choices. Prices will be set by supply and demand, with smaller rights-holders represented by collectives who process transactions on their behalf and distribute revenues. Second, what are the barriers that prevent us building such a marketplace? Among a great many, two stand out: offshoring and transparency. The UK can make any laws it likes, but any AI developer who doesn't like them can offshore training activity to a jurisdiction where they can legally conduct the same training with the same content. Not only would the problem remain unsolved for our rights-holders, but we would be pushing AI activity out of the country. Which brings us to transparency: there is a view that we could require any AI model used in the UK to declare all of the content used in its creation, thus solving the offshoring problem. I'm afraid this is wishful thinking. How would this vast quantity of information be sought, verified and audited? How would we enforce it? How would we establish a direct link between the expressed output and the suspected input? What if the training material is not copyrighted but an imitation of an imitation (and so on) of copyrighted material? I don't believe there is a form of words that can be made into a law that fixes AI and copyright in a way that satisfies all sides. I do, however, believe that a combination of technologies, standards and law can help us build the marketplace for copyright. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The key technology is going to be machinereadable digital watermarking that can be indelibly embedded in any file and would contain licence information. Crucially, rights-holders would need to easily (or automatically) apply watermarks to all of their material. This starts to address the transparency problem, but it only works if everyone agrees to use the same design – or at least to choose from a limited number of designs. It would depend, in short, on the existence of globally agreed technical standards – hardly a novelty in the internet age. Armed with such standards, governments would be far better placed to make the laws to create a fair and trusted marketplace for copyrighted materials. Globally standardised digital watermarks solve the transparency problem and transparency solves the offshoring problem. The government is moving too slowly. Technology is driving change more quickly now – it's time for boldness and agility. No country has solved this problem, and if we can then we have a chance to be a global leader in AI again. This article first appeared in our Spotlight on Technology supplement, of 13 June 2025. Related
Daily Mail
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Man accused of nearly decapitating schoolboy in Hainault sword attack 'took psychedelic drug ayahuasca and drank his own urine', court hears
An alleged sword attacker accused of nearly decapitating a schoolboy in a drug-fuelled rampage in London has told of taking psychedelics and drinking his own urine years before amid an interest in spirituality. Marcus Arduini Monzo, 37, allegedly skinned and deboned his pet cat before launching a 20-minute spree of violence in Hainault, east London, while high on cannabis, the Old Bailey heard. He is accused of murdering 14-year-old Daniel Anjorin, mowing down pedestrian Donato Iwule with a van and attacking two police officers and a couple in their home on April 30 last year. Giving evidence on his background on Friday, Monzo told the court he experienced 'bullying and violence' while growing up in Brazil. He moved to London in 2013, where he began smoking cannabis and took magic mushrooms a few times, jurors heard. The defendant said he stopped in 2015 because cannabis made him feel 'unproductive' and 'lazy', but resumed using it years later. Following a mixed martial arts (MMA) injury in 2016, Monzo turned to yoga and developed an increasing interest in spirituality, the court was told. Asked what spirituality meant to him, he said: 'Exploring the subtle aspects of life - the magical, miraculous and supernatural.' Around 2017, he began following YouTube spiritual guru Sadhguru, which led to a year-long stay in India, jurors heard. Monzo said he was taught at a retreat to detach from family and friends. During a weekend trip, he took ayahuasca - a hallucinogenic brew traditionally used in South America. He returned to the UK 'looking skinnier', before travelling to a remote part of Brazil to consume more ayahuasca, the court heard. Monzo also said he took ayahuasca twice in the UK, describing it as having stronger effects during 'ceremonies'. He later travelled again to Brazil and India, and also attended breatharian festivals in Italy and Denmark, which promote living without food, jurors were told. On his return to the UK, Monzo said he argued with family members because he was 'not very clean'. The defendant told the court that he began drinking his own urine for 'cleaning' purposes. He added: 'I would use it to shower, on the hair, even using it on the nose.' Monzo allegedly used his Ford Transit to knock Mr Iwule into a garden, then slashed him in the neck with a samurai sword before the victim escaped, jurors were previously told. He then virtually decapitated Daniel, who was wearing headphones on his way to school, the court heard. Pc Yasmin Mechem-Whitfield chased the defendant through alleyways before he struck her three times with the sword that had a 60cm blade, prosecutors say. Monzo then allegedly entered a property and attacked a couple who were sleeping in an upstairs bedroom with their young daughter nearby. He also struck Inspector Moloy Campbell once with the sword before he was arrested. Afterwards, he likened events to the Hollywood film The Hunger Games and claimed to have an alternative personality of a 'professional assassin'. Monzo denies Daniel's murder and the attempted murders of Mr Iwule, Sindy Arias, Henry De Los Rios Polania and Ms Mechem-Whitfield, as well as wounding Mr Campbell with intent. He also denies aggravated burglary and possession of a bladed article relating to a kitchen knife. Monzo has admitted having two swords. The trial continues.
