Consultation outcome

Government response to the consultation on replacement legislation for the Vagrancy Act

Updated 28 November 2023

Introduction

Background

1. In the 2018 Rough Sleeping Strategy, the government made a commitment to launch a review of homelessness and rough sleeping legislation, including the Vagrancy Act 1824, to ensure that our laws create the right environment to deliver effective services and engage constructively with vulnerable people.

2. We must make sure that local authorities, police and other agencies are able to protect the public and make communities feel safe for all. This includes supporting vulnerable individuals and responding effectively to begging and rough sleeping, which can help to reduce the detrimental effects begging and rough sleeping can have on other members of the public, communities and public spaces.

3. We recognise that begging can cause harm to the individuals involved and to wider communities given its impact on high streets and community cohesion. It is right that the police and local authorities should have the tools they need to respond effectively to begging, and that we place rehabilitation and support at the centre of our approach for those who need it most.

4. The Vagrancy Act sets out a framework for dealing with a range of offences related to disorderly behaviour. Section 3 of the Vagrancy Act makes begging a criminal offence, and Section 4 primarily makes it an offence to sleep out or be on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose.

5. In 2019 the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) conducted an internal review of the Vagrancy Act. The review concluded that we should repeal this antiquated legislation, but should do so after government had the opportunity to consider any appropriate and modern replacement, subject to the results of a public consultation. The next steps following the internal review were paused during the pandemic, while we focussed on keeping people sleeping rough safe. We confirmed the repeal of the Act through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. Further details on the 2019 review of the Vagrancy Act have been outlined below.

6. The consultation launched on Thursday 7 April 2022 and ran for 4 weeks until Thursday 5 May 2022. This document summarises the responses that were received and outlines the government response to the consultation.

7. The consultation sought views on proposals to respond effectively to begging, potential penalties for harmful begging and how to encourage vulnerable people to engage with rehabilitative support. The intention of this was to ensure the police and other agencies can respond effectively and help communities feel safe while ensuring rehabilitation and support is at the heart of our approach.

8. The Anti-Social Behaviour Plan published in March 2023 outlined plans to introduce new powers for local authorities and the police to direct individuals into support where appropriate. It also outlined plans to ensure begging and rough sleeping can be addressed where it is causing a nuisance.

9. The Anti-Social Behaviour Plan committed us to:

a. Introduce new tools to direct individuals to engage with positive pathways, including accommodation, mental health support, substance misuse support, and immigration or asylum services, so individuals who may have turned away help before access the support they need.

b. Prohibit organised begging, which is often facilitated by criminal gangs to obtain cash for illicit activity.

c. Prohibit begging where it is causing a public nuisance, such as by a cashpoint, in a shop doorway, on public transport, approaching people on the street or in their cars, and any broader incidence that cause nuisance, distress or blight.

d. Introduce powers for the police and local authorities to address rough sleeping and other street activity where it is causing a public nuisance, such as by obstruction of doorways and pavements, and to clear the debris, tents and paraphernalia that can blight an area, while ensuring those genuinely homeless and with complex needs are directed to appropriate support.

10. On 14 November, government brought forward the Criminal Justice Bill. Subject to parliamentary approval of that legislation, the government will then repeal the outdated Vagrancy Act.

11. Government is also committed to preventing people ending up on the streets. Last year the government published its plan to end rough sleeping for good. We committed an unprecedented £2 billion over 3 years, focused on preventing rough sleeping – ensuring, for example, that those leaving a public institution, whether prison, hospital or care, will not find themselves on the streets with no place to go.

12. For the first time, we are defining what we mean by ending rough sleeping – that rough sleeping will be prevented wherever possible, and when it does occur, it will be a rare, brief and non-recurring experience. We will also bring forward a new data framework that will enable us to track progress against the definition and ensure all local and central partners are playing their part.

13. We are taking action to prevent people from becoming homeless and rough sleeping in the first place. Our rough sleeping strategy sets out a ‘prevention first approach’, including bringing forward investment so that nobody leaves a public institution for the streets, such as prison, hospital or care.

14. We have extended our flagship Rough Sleeping Initiative to 2025, with over £530 million funding over three years so that local areas can provide the tailored support needed to end rough sleeping.

15. We are investing in specialist accommodation to make sure people have a route to an independent life off the streets for good, including completing delivery of the Housing First pilots, a new £200 million Single Homelessness Accommodation Programme to deliver much-needed homes for young people and those with complex needs with a history of rough sleeping, and continuing to deliver 6,000 move-on homes through the Rough Sleeping Accommodation Programme, the biggest ever investment in housing for people sleeping rough.

16. We are not just providing additional investment in accommodation. We are working across the system to strengthen Jobcentre support, bring together housing, homelessness and healthcare – including improving mental health provision and significant investment into drug and alcohol treatment. For example, we are providing up to £186.5 million funding for the Rough Sleeping Drug and Alcohol Treatment Grant over this spending review period, and expanding into a further 20 local authorities, taking the total to 83.

Review of the Vagrancy Act 2019

17. This review sought views from a variety of stakeholders, including the police, on the then current use of the Act, the impact of repeal, and, if fully repealed, whether replacement legislation would be necessary. The review took place in 2019 and therefore some of the views expressed may have shifted since then.

18. Police forces who contributed to the review largely confirmed that they do use the Act, specifically for the offences of begging and rough sleeping and often in conjunction with other legislation, such as the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Police Act 2014 (ASB Act). The Vagrancy Act can provide a useful tool to leverage an individual into support.

19. While alternative legislation can be used to tackle aggressive forms of begging, i.e., where the person begging may cause harassment, alarm or distress to a member of the public, stakeholders reported that it is not always suitable because the trigger is not always appropriate to the situation, and it does not always allow for immediate, on the spot intervention.

20. Therefore, some respondents (primarily representatives from different police forces and local authorities) identified a need for replacement legislation for Section 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act to allow the police to intervene quickly and effectively in begging and rough sleeping where that is causing nuisance or damage, disruption or distress to others. The police responses that did support full repeal without replacement were of the view that alternative powers are sufficient when used. Views were mixed on this, however, across the sector and local authorities. 26% of respondents thought that legislative changes are needed to respond to rough sleeping, including those who refuse support. In terms of the best approach if individuals refuse support, or where harmful behaviour is involved, 40% of respondents to this question thought that criminal proceedings should be used for those who refuse support.

21. Of the 23 police responses, nine (39%) called for further funding and support for services, five (22%) called for better access to and quality of accommodation, five (22%) called for improved health care provisions, and 15 (65%) thought a multi-agency approach should be considered.

22. Where these responses provided further detail on what replacement legislation could look like, it was frequently noted that any alternative must come with an alternative penalty to fines that encourages support, not just punishment, as the sanctions under the Vagrancy Act were not seen as appropriate. The speed at which interventions could be implemented to allow enforcement agencies to take immediate action was also considered important and so any replacement legislation should enable agencies to respond swiftly.

Methodology for the 2022 consultation

23. The 2022 consultation was published on GOV.UK and was open for anybody to respond. The majority of responses were submitted via the online questionnaire, while a number of respondents submitted their responses via the dedicated email mailbox. The consultation consisted of a background policy document, and a series of nine open questions to gather views on approaches to begging and rough sleeping.

24. We received 141 responses to the consultation which provided information on views from a variety of stakeholders on current legislation on begging and rough sleeping and what future legislation could look like. Of these, 59 were official responses from organisations. Of the 141 responses received:

• 42 were from local authorities (19 of which were official responses)
• 23 were from police (6 of which were official responses)
• 35 were from the sector, including delivery partners and small voluntary sector organisations as well as more established groups such as Shelter and Crisis (20 of these were official responses)
• four were from groups and individuals with personal experience of rough sleeping and homelessness (three of which were official responses)
• 17 were from members of the public
• 20 were categorised as ‘other’ e.g. Women’s Aid, British Association of Social Workers (11 of these were official responses)

25. Alongside the online questionnaire, we also arranged several sessions to engage with stakeholders directly affected by this policy area. This included local authorities, police, service providers, the voluntary sector and people with personal experience of rough sleeping and homelessness. Qualitative data collected from these sessions have been consolidated and analysed together with written responses to form the “Response Summary” sections.

26. During these sessions with stakeholders, and separate ones following publication of the Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan in March 2023, while a range of views were expressed a number of local authorities and police forces outlined support in principle for replacement powers.

27. All responses we received have been considered equally and this document provides a summary of those responses. Some questions directly asked respondents to agree/disagree. Where open questions were asked or free text boxes provided, all responses were analysed to identify common themes and coded where possible to collate similar views and comments.

28. This document provides a summary of consultation responses, and has been grouped into three sections:

Section 1: Introducing new offences to prevent begging and appropriate powers, requirements, penalties and support (Question 1, 2, 4 and 5)

Section 2: Supporting the police, local authorities, and other enforcement agencies to engage with individuals experiencing rough sleeping (Question 6 and 7)

Section 3: Other issues and proposals (Question 3, 8 and 9)

29. This summary is not intended to be an exhaustive record of all the points made and the absence of a particular issue does not indicate that it has not been taken into account.

Main findings

30. We received 141 responses which provided views from a variety of stakeholders, including their proposals for replacement legislation for the Vagrancy Act and supporting enforcement bodies to engage better with people experiencing rough sleeping.

31. We received responses from a range of organisations, including the police, local authorities, established charities, service providers and smaller voluntary organisations. We also received responses from people with personal experience of begging, and from members of the public. There were a number of responses from both organisations and individuals, meaning that not all views represented are the official views of organisations. For the purpose of this consultation response, any references to ‘responses’ includes both individual and organisational responses.

32. Responses to the consultation overall were mixed, with differing views across sectors and a wide variety of themes and issues were raised.

33. Over half of responses were in favour of the government introducing new offences to prevent specific forms of begging, with responses from local authorities and police largely in favour of new legislation. A third of respondents were opposed to replacement legislation, while other responses were unsure or unclear in their response. There were also mixed views on the best approach to requirements and penalties of any new legislation targeting begging.

34. The majority of respondents felt that begging was harmful to individuals and/or detrimental to communities. Aggressive begging was raised most frequently as having a detrimental impact to the public, followed by the harm that begging can cause individuals when it is used to fund substance misuse, and the harm caused to the public when begging in certain locations.

35. There was some limited support from respondents for replacement legislation to prohibit rough sleeping during the consultation period. In response to questions about what changes were needed to better equip agencies to engage those sleeping rough, most responses focussed on multi-agency approaches and further funding for homelessness and rough sleeping services. Ongoing engagement continues to take place with input from frontline police, local authority leads and Business Improvement Districts.

36. Where responses mentioned issues related to individuals sleeping rough in tents and individuals who trespass while sleeping rough, there was less support for new legislation compared to begging. Those that favoured legislative changes were supportive of proportionate responses where criminality is well evidenced, where there is an obvious risk of harm and where other interventions have not been successful.

37. Some themes were cross-cutting and raised frequently by respondents to multiple questions. These include a need for an effective multi-agency approach, raised consistently by respondents across the consultation, often alongside requests for further guidance/best practice sharing in this space; more trauma informed approaches; opposition to the use of fines as a deterrent, which were considered counterproductive; and sufficient funding and access to a range of services, especially if any new offences are linked to engagement with services.

38. The government has carefully considered all issues raised in the consultation responses. We believe that replacement legislation is needed so that the police and local authorities have the tools they need to respond effectively to begging and rough sleeping that can cause a nuisance to the public and harm the individuals involved. This is consistent with the Anti Social Behaviour Plan published in March, and government is now bringing forward these powers as part of the Criminal Justice Bill.

Section 1: The response to begging

Introducing new offences to prevent begging

Question 1: Do you agree that the government should introduce new offences to prevent specific forms of begging that may be harmful to individuals or detrimental to communities?

Question 2: Do you agree that begging is harmful to individuals and detrimental to communities? What forms of begging cause greatest harm to individuals and/or detriment to communities?

“We cannot…overlook the need to protect our communities from harmful forms of begging. In order to promote public safety, any future replacement legislation for the Vagrancy Act should equip police forces with specific legislative measures to robustly tackle persistent and aggressive begging which causes harm to our communities”
consultation response from a Combined Authority Mayor

39. Just over half of responses to the consultation were in favour of the government introducing replacement begging offences. Responses from local authorities and the police were largely in favour of bringing forward new legislation. The main concerns raised among those in favour of replacing legislation were varied. The most raised point was how begging harms communities and/or individuals, for example through intimidating members of the public, or funding substance misuse.

40. Several responses in favour of new offences also recognised that any new legislation should be used as a means to encourage vulnerable people into services, suggesting that purely punitive measures are not always an appropriate approach to change behaviour truly.

41. One third of respondents opposed any replacement legislation and there were shared themes highlighted in these responses. Responses from the voluntary sector were generally opposed to replacement legislation. A majority of these respondents believe there is already sufficient legislation to enable the police and other agencies to respond to begging, citing the ASB Act and the Public Order Act 1986 as examples, amongst others. Around half of those who opposed replacement begging legislation emphasised that people who beg should primarily be provided with support. Another issue raised was that there could be adverse consequences to bringing forward replacement begging legislation, such as encouraging other crimes to raise funds, such as increased robberies.

42. The remaining respondents were unsure or unclear in their response.

43. In response to question 2, the majority of respondents felt that begging was harmful, either to individuals and/or detrimental to communities. Aggressive begging was raised most frequently as having a detrimental impact. It was raised by over a third of respondents, with responses citing examples it can intimidate individual members of the public and affect their sense of safety.

44. After aggressive begging, the most common themes raised by those who felt that begging was harmful was when it is used to fund substance misuse, and when begging occurs in certain locations e.g., by cash machines, in shop doorways, in “high footfall areas” and by traffic lights. There was concern that this intimidated the local community and could affect local businesses, and the public may feel unsafe to use them. Organised begging was also raised as a concern by respondents. It was argued any new legislation should focus on the organiser, given there is often exploitation involved in organised begging.

45. Only a small number of responses (around one sixth) did not think that begging was harmful, mainly stating that begging is a symptom of a wider issue, such as poverty, health needs, or social exclusion. These respondents felt that measures should be put in place to tackle these issues.

Raised by % of responses	The most harmful forms of begging, according to consultation responses
36%	Aggressive begging
23%	Begging in certain locations; and begging which funds substance misuse
21%	Organised begging
20%	Exploitative begging
17%	Begging which impacts pride of place or community cohesion
13%	Persistent begging; begging which prevents engagement with support services; fraudulent begging.

Appropriate powers, requirements, penalties and support

Question 4: What types of offences and associated powers, requirements and penalties are most appropriate to incentivise individuals to engage with support? We would welcome any views about the current options available to the police, local authorities and courts as outlined in the consultation document.

Question 5: What more could be done to make sure any new offences for begging support the right environment to deliver services and engage with vulnerable people?

We would prefer to see a more streamlined approach and faster action – consultation response from a local authority.

46. The consultation sought views on several approaches to instances of begging, framed in the context of incentivising individuals to engage with support:

• out of court disposals, such as cautions, which could include conditions to engage with support
• community orders, with a rehabilitative requirement where appropriate
• fines, and imprisonment for more serious offences
• civil orders, such as those used under the ASB Act
• using Drug Testing on Arrest where appropriate to refer individuals into treatment

47. There was no clear consensus on the appropriate penalties or routes to incentivise individuals into support.

48. Mandating people into support was raised most frequently. Some saw this as a positive approach for enforcement, which would ensure that the focus was on supporting individuals, for example through a drug diversion scheme. Respondents, however, argued that mandating people into support services is not an effective way to encourage people into support, citing that they may not trust services and that this does not follow a person-centred approach.

49. There was general agreement that fines were not effective as a deterrent and seen as counter-productive, given the financial circumstances of many individuals begging.

50. There was otherwise limited consensus on the types of powers, requirements and penalties most appropriate to incentivise individuals to engage with support. A small number of responses discussed community orders and out of court disposals as effective ways to intervene constructively and set conditionality around engagement with services.

51. Over one third of responses raised civil orders, such as those used under the ASB Act, although with mixed views. This included Community Protection Warnings and Notices (CPW/CPN), Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) and injunctions. Many of these responses noted that this route was used to address the anti-social behaviour of people who beg. Some issues raised with these approaches are that CPWs and CPNs can be burdensome to process, and that civil orders which prohibit an individual from a certain area, such as a city centre, may exclude them from city centre services that are otherwise beneficial. It was also noted that both CPWs and CPNs can be used with positive conditions, which was viewed as a good aspect of this approach, although as previously mentioned there are broadly mixed views on the effectiveness of an approach that mandates individuals into support services.

52. Otherwise, several responses mentioned the need to use an ‘escalation route’ of penalties, to allow for positive provisions and mandating people into support as a priority. Several others highlighted the need for a multi-agency approach.

53. When considering what more could be done to ensure that new offences for begging support the right environment to deliver services and engage with vulnerable people, responses largely focussed on non-legislative measures.

54. Around half of respondents focussed on the need to ensure that there is sufficient funding and services to support the individual begging, including welfare, housing, substance misuse support and mental health services, amongst others. Some raised multi-agency working as the key to delivering effective services.

Government response

55. The government recognises the concern that begging causes, both because of the harm that this can cause to the individual and the detriment it can cause to other members of the public and in the community. We note that aggressive begging, begging in particular locations, or begging which harms the individual through funding substance misuse and likely entrenching a street lifestyle causes the most concern to respondents.

56. It is the government’s view that with the repeal of the Vagrancy Act, there is a need to create modern replacement legislation to allow the police and local authorities to respond effectively to begging.

57. This is important to reduce the harmful impact that begging can have in our towns and cities, including high streets and other areas and on community cohesion, as well to encourage individuals involved in begging into support when appropriate.

58. Having considered the feedback from the consultation, government intends to bring forward the following to support police and local authorities in helping communities feel safer:

a. Criminal offences for begging where it causes a nuisance and facilitating organised begging.

b. Creation of a move on power for begging where it causes a nuisance. The power would be exercised by a constable or a local authority officer.

c. Creation of a Begging Prevention Notice and Begging Prevention Order. This will allow local authorities and police to issue a Notice to target the nuisance begging and/or, where appropriate, to seek a court order if necessary to direct an individual into appropriate support services.

59. The Criminal Justice Bill introduced to Parliament on 14 November 2023 contains all of these provisions.

Section 2: Supporting the police, local authorities and other agencies to engage with individuals experiencing rough sleeping

Question 6: What changes should be considered to better equip the police, local authorities and other agencies with the tools to engage those sleeping rough and support them away from the streets? What is the best approach if individuals refuse support or where harmful behaviour is involved?

Question 7: What other changes should be considered to better equip police, local authorities and other agencies to engage with people who are rough sleeping including in tents or trespassing on private property?

“Those who consistently refuse the services designed to help them and continue to cause harm to others in the community will be subject to proportionate enforcement”
consultation response from a local authority

“There needs to be a real possibility of consequence for their actions. If the various partners are not able to take action that can effect a person [sic] then there is no reason why that person should take challenging decisions to change their behaviour”
consultation response from a police force

60. There was a strong sense from respondents that multi-agency working and further funding and support for people sleeping rough were the key to better equipping the police, local authorities and other agencies with the tools to engage those sleeping rough and support them away from the streets. Over half of respondents mentioned these themes. Around a third saw benefit in improved health care for those on the streets, alongside bringing forward trauma-informed responses.

61. The government has made significant commitments to fund and support those sleeping rough. This includes an unprecedented commitment to end rough sleeping within this Parliament and in September 2022 we published our new cross-government strategy ‘Ending Rough Sleeping for Good’, setting out how we are investing £2 billion over the three years to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.

62. A quarter of respondents to the consultation were in favour of the government introducing new offences to equip agencies better to support individuals sleeping rough away from life on the street, whilst one in ten were opposed to any legislative change once repeal of the Vagrancy Act has been achieved. Further, engagement continues particularly with police and local authorities to understand the wide range of situations that they encounter and how these are responded to.

63. There was no clear preferred approach for situations where individuals refuse support or where harmful behaviour is involved in instances of rough sleeping. A quarter of respondents were in favour of criminal proceedings should individuals refuse support or engage in harmful behaviour, however many of these responses expressed that this should only be the approach where all other avenues have been exhausted. A fifth of respondents discussed mandating or incentivising individuals into support, although there were mixed views on the effectiveness of this. Others suggested more trauma-informed approaches to rough sleeping and training would be useful.

64. Of those responses that mentioned issues related to individuals sleeping rough in tents and trespassing while sleeping rough, more respondents opposed legislation than supported it. Those in support of legislative powers to deal with tents and trespass were only supportive provided these are proportionate and criminality is well evidenced, and when all other interventions have not been successful. Of those responses that mentioned issues related to individuals sleeping rough in tents and trespassing while sleeping rough, views were mixed with 35% in support of some form of legislation.

Government response

65. Restoring pride in place with safe streets and clean parks means we must maintain and enhance our public spaces. To deliver this, we must address in a compassionate but firm way those who can cause distress or harm to themselves and others. This in turn undermines the overall atmosphere of public safety and community pride.

66. A critical starting point is to prevent people ending up on the streets in the first place. Last year the government published its plan to end rough sleeping for good. We committed an unprecedented £2 billion over 3 years, focused on preventing rough sleeping – ensuring, for example, that those leaving a public institution, whether prison, hospital or care, will not find themselves on the streets with no place to go.

67. For the first time, we are defining what we mean by ending rough sleeping – that rough sleeping will be prevented wherever possible, and when it does occur, it will be a rare, brief and non-recurring experience. We will also bring forward a new data framework that will enable us to track progress against the definition and ensure all local and central partners are playing their part.

68. We are taking action to prevent people from becoming homeless and rough sleeping in the first place. Our rough sleeping strategy sets out a ‘prevention first approach’, including bringing forward investment so that nobody leaves a public institution for the streets, such as prison, hospital or care.

69. We have extended our flagship Rough Sleeping Initiative to 2025, with over £530 million funding over three years so that local areas can provide the tailored support needed to end rough sleeping.

70. We are investing in specialist accommodation to make sure people have a route to an independent life off the streets for good, including completing delivery of the Housing First pilots, a new £200 million Single Homelessness Accommodation Programme to deliver much-needed homes for young people and those with complex needs with a history of rough sleeping, and continuing to deliver 6,000 move-on homes through the Rough Sleeping Accommodation Programme, the biggest ever investment in housing for people sleeping rough.

71. We are not just providing additional investment in accommodation. We are working across the system to strengthen Jobcentre support, bring together housing, homelessness and healthcare – including improving mental health provision and significant investment into drug and alcohol treatment. For example, we are providing up to £186.5 million funding for the Rough Sleeping Drug and Alcohol Treatment Grant over this spending review period, and expanding into a further 20 local authorities, taking the total to 83.

72. Although there was limited support for new powers on rough sleeping in the consultation, the government believes local authorities and the police should have effective tools in situations where those sleeping rough are causing damage, disruption, and distress. These tools will also, where appropriate, allow local authorities and police to seek Court Orders which can help direct individuals into appropriate support. To enable this, the government is introducing legislation to:

a. Create a move on power for rough sleeping where it causes damage, disruption, distress or harassment as well as health and safety or security risks. The power would be exercised by a constable or a local authority officer; and

b. Create a new prevention notice and order for rough sleeping where it causes damage, disruption, distress or harassment as well as health and safety or security risks. This will allow local authorities and police to issue a Notice to target the nuisance begging and/or, where appropriate, to seek a court order if necessary to direct an individual into appropriate support services.

Section 3: Other issues and proposals

Question 3: Do you agree there may be benefit in raising public awareness about the drivers of begging, and the links this activity may have to sustaining an individual’s life on the street?

73. Over two thirds of respondents agreed that there is benefit in raising public awareness about the drivers of begging. Others disagreed or were unsure of the best approach.

74. Of those that agreed, just under half thought that this should aim to increase public awareness about how best to support people begging. Some called for increased awareness about how begging can sustain behaviour which is harmful to the individual, such as funding substance misuse and sustaining street activity. Others highlighted that it is important to raise awareness about the differences between rough sleeping and begging; as well as highlighting that those who beg can be vulnerable.

75. Several responses flagged that this should not further stigmatise people who beg or create stereotypes about this cohort of people, and that any public awareness campaign should be handled sensitively.

Question 8: Are there any other issues that would emerge from repeal of the Vagrancy Act that you think should be considered in bringing forward replacement legislation?

Question 9: What do you consider to be the equalities impact on individuals with protected characteristics of any of the proposed options for replacement legislation? Please give reasons and any evidence that you consider relevant.

76. The majority of responses did not raise any additional issues that would emerge from the repeal of the Vagrancy Act. Those that did use this opportunity to raise specific issues mostly raised topics that were already represented elsewhere in consultation responses. A very small number of responses made reference to people with restricted eligibility for homelessness assistance.

77. Only some respondents provided a clear response on the equalities impacts of any replacement legislation. Most respondents did allude to potential implications of replacement legislation on a range of groups with protected characteristics, albeit without detail on what those effects could be. Groups raised most frequently in responses to the consultation were: individuals with disabilities or health needs, LGBT individuals, women, ethnic minorities, and victims of exploitation, including victims of Modern Slavery, although noting that not all of these protected characteristics are listed under the Equality Act.

78. As previously outlined, government has also made significant commitments to fund and support those sleeping rough. These commitments will help support many of the groups raised in the consultation responses.

Government response

79. The general public have an important role to play in helping to end rough sleeping. Street Link is an online platform that enables the general public to alert local outreach teams to someone they see sleeping rough.

80. We recognise that some characteristics can affect someone’s experience with rough sleeping and we are committed to supporting local authorities and wider partners to deliver services that meet these needs. The Rough Sleeping Initiative supports a range of services and tailored interventions for groups at risk of rough sleeping, including women.