Lord Best (CB) My Lords, my Amendment 320 and the consequential
Amendment 328 are—slightly surprisingly—in this group. Together,
they would finally repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, which
makes homelessness a criminal offence. I am grateful to the
homelessness charity Crisis for devising these well-crafted
amendments. I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady
Thornhill and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the noble Lords, Lord
Young of Cookham and Lord...Request free
trial
(CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 320 and the consequential Amendment 328
are—slightly surprisingly—in this group. Together, they would
finally repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824,
which makes homelessness a criminal offence.
I am grateful to the homelessness charity Crisis for devising
these well-crafted amendments. I am most grateful to the noble
Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the
noble Lords, and , and the noble and learned
Lord, , for adding their
names to these amendments. They join the long list of
distinguished parliamentarians, including William Wilberforce in
the 1820s and Winston Churchill in the 1930s, who have opposed
this objectionable legislation. Indeed, last month the Prime
Minister himself spoke out, saying:
“No one should be criminalised simply for having nowhere to live,
and I think the time has come to reconsider the Vagrancy
Act .—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 752.]
Since there can be no objection from the Treasury, as there is no
expenditure involved, it seems, therefore, that the moment has
arrived. After almost 200 years, the antiquated and
misguided Vagrancy Act can at
last be laid to rest.
Certainly, the importance of repealing the Act remains, although
I will not repeat my Second Reading speech on this theme. Suffice
to say, punishing people for being homeless is entirely the wrong
approach. Fining people up to £1,000 for sleeping rough or
begging and giving them a criminal record is surely a travesty,
making their recovery and reintegration into society more
difficult than ever. It inhibits the referral of those sleeping
rough to the community and social services that can help them,
and as long as being homeless is itself a criminal offence,
homeless people are deterred from engaging with the law when they
are the victims of dreadful violence and abuse, as they so often
are.
I note that rough sleepers are 17 times more likely to be victims
of crime than the rest of us. Among the examples provided by
Crisis, I note the quote from a man in Oxford, who said that
“in my nine years on and off the street, I was violently
attacked, shouted at and even urinated on by total strangers.
Enduring this abuse was hard enough—I didn’t expect the law to
hold my very existence against me.”
Other case studies from Crisis demonstrate just how
counterproductive the Act is in blocking the chance for agencies
to help and instead penalising and fining those least able to
pay.
However, it is now clear that, to the highest levels of
government, Ministers have accepted the case for repeal.
Nevertheless, in case there are any lingering doubts or
hesitations, perhaps I could offer some observations on possible
objections to these amendments.
First, securing this repeal has been inhibited to date by the
problem of finding the parliamentary time for the Government to
do what they want to. Clearly, this obstacle is behind us now
that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill provides the
opportunity for this to be expedited right away. Indeed, it would
absorb far more parliamentary time if the Government were to
prepare a fresh Bill to be taken through its 10 stages in the two
Houses. It would also take more time if the Government turned
down the opportunity before us and required these amendments to
go to a vote, with all the extra toing and froing that this would
entail. Missing this moment now would surely mean a long,
frustrating and pointless wait for the next legislative
opportunity, which might be years away.
Secondly, there is the objection that the amendments themselves
need revising. The Minister raised such an objection at Second
Reading: she noted the devolution implication, given that it
extends to Wales. This is an important point and has now been the
subject of discussion with the key people in Wales. Welsh
Government Ministers have themselves advocated a repeal, and the
Ministry of Justice has now been notified that the Welsh
Government have indicated their full support for the amendments
to apply to Wales as well as England. The necessary legislative
consent Motion from the Senedd is scheduled once further
amendments are made to the Bill. A tweak to the amendments before
us has been prepared to embrace this Welsh dimension, and this
can be brought forward, I hope with government approval, on
Report. The devolution issue here is one of extra support from
Wales. I add that the Vagrancy Act has
already been successfully repealed in Scotland.
Thirdly, it might be argued that there are still parts of the
original legislation covering aggressive begging and anti-social
behaviour which need to be preserved, complicating any repeal of
the Act. However, this line of argument ignores the far more
extensive powers now available under other legislation, notably
the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, to which
I believe the noble Lord, , will draw attention.
There are compelling arguments for the police to use these powers
very sparingly in so far as they embrace homeless people, but it
cannot be said that the necessary powers do not exist. To support
necessary action by front-line police, Amendment 320 includes the
totally non-contentious but none the less valuable subsidiary
provision for updated guidance on the 2014 Act to be
disseminated, promoting the preventive approach now adopted by
most police forces.
Fourthly, it is said that it is not worth bothering with repeal
of the Vagrancy Act since the
number of people charged under it has been declining. However,
the Act is still used as a fallback, even though other, more
appropriate measures are available. Under pressure from local
members of the public, the Act is still deployed.
Moreover, the symbolism in this repeal should not be
underestimated; it demonstrates a more enlightened understanding
of homelessness. The Government could be rightly proud of making
this symbolic gesture alongside their good work in responding to
homelessness in the pandemic with their Everyone In initiative;
their support for the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, MP’s Private Member’s Bill, which I had the honour
of taking through your Lordships’ House; and their excellent
funding for the Housing First projects.
The Government have the laudable objective of ending homelessness
by 2024. Removing the barrier of the Vagrancy
Act that still hangs over homelessness policy must be an
essential step in this direction. I hope the Minister will agree
that there really are no arguments for further delay. It has been
over three years since the Government committed to look again at
this issue and no difficulties have been uncovered. It is almost
200 years since this controversial measure was enacted; let us
not kick the can any further down the road. At last, here and
now, we have the opportunity to get this done.
I would be delighted to meet Ministers to discuss any further
tweaks that could improve these amendments before Report, an
offer I am sure goes for the other noble Lords supporting these
amendments. Because of the way amendments have been grouped
today, I will not be invited to sum up the position after the
Minister’s response, so perhaps I can be clear now that I intend
to take these amendments to a vote on Report if we are unable to
agree a form of words to repeal the 1824 Act. However, I hope it
will not come to this and I eagerly anticipate the Minister’s
response.
(Con)
My Lords, first, I will say a brief word on Amendment 292J,
proposed by noble Lords on the Public Services Committee, on
which I and my noble friend Lady Wyld also serve. It backs one of
the recommendations made in last week’s report and I support the
case being made. Indeed, on 25 October, I tabled an amendment
with the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, to help exactly the same
group as mentioned in this amendment, namely children at risk of
domestic violence and criminal exploitation. In that amendment, I
argued for them to be given housing priority, so I hope the
Minister will reply sympathetically to the case made by the noble
Lord, Lord Hunt, and others.
I have added my name to Amendment 328, which is consequential to
Amendment 320, tabled by the noble Lord, . I add a brief footnote to what
he said, in support of the campaign which he has long championed.
On 23 April 2020, in an Oral Question about the Vagrancy Act 1824, I
asked the Minister if he agreed that
“attitudes to those who sleep rough have softened over the past
200 years and that legislation which refers to ‘idle and
disorderly’, ‘rogues’ and ‘vagabonds’ living in ‘coach-houses’
and ‘stables’ has no place in modern legislation”.
Later in that exchange, the noble and learned Lord, , weighed in, saying:
“If Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act which was
enacted after repeated harvest failures created an army of the
dispossessed, were presented to us today, beyond the archaic
language to which the noble Lord, Lord Young, has already
referred, we should reject it as being vague and uncertain, and
arguably tarnished with an improper reverse burden of
proof.”—[Official Report, 23/4/20; col. 84.]
We have heard the Prime Minister’s words on this. The former
Secretary of State at the then MHCLG said that, in his opinion,
the Vagrancy Act whose
short title is
“An Act for the Punishment of idle and disorderly Persons, and
Rogues and Vagabonds, in England”,
should be repealed. As the noble Lord, , said, here we have an amendment
that would deliver government policy. At Second Reading, the
Minister said she was sure the House would hold her to account on
her assurance that she was on the case—so here we are.
This is not the first attempt at repeal. On 17 August 1911, Sir
William Byles asked the Home Secretary
“whether the new Recorder of Liverpool, Mr. Hemmerde, K.C., has
just sentenced a young man, Edward Gillibanks, to twenty-five
strokes with the birch, in addition to twelve months’ hard
labour, for being an incorrigible rogue; and whether, in view of
the effect of this form of punishment, he will consider the
desirability of proposing the repeal of the Vagrancy
Act .
The Home Secretary, one Mr Churchill, replied:
“I cannot say that I think the punishment inflicted on him
supplies an argument for repealing the Vagrancy
Act ”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/8/1911; cols.
2103-04.]
Let us hope we fare a little better today.
It is now common ground that the Act does nothing to resolve or
tackle the causes of homelessness. On the contrary, by directing
rough sleepers down the criminal justice route, it risks
isolating them from the very sources of help now generously
provided by the Government, which can help them to rebuild their
lives.
The right approach is set out in the thoughtful and comprehensive
approach of Westminster City Council, detailed in its rough
sleeping strategy, which outlines how rough sleeping can be
sensitively handled in a borough to which the magnetism of the
capital attracts so many. Every rough sleeper is offered a
personalised and sustainable route away from the streets, based
on their circumstances. The council has remodelled its services
to accept women, who make up some 17% of rough sleepers, and can
accommodate women who will not be parted from their dogs.
Westminster also makes it clear that it needs powers to deal with
those who behave aggressively or anti-socially. The amendment
contains the necessary provisions and my noble friend will refer to other
provisions on the statute book to deal with unacceptable
behaviour. We have the perfect vehicle to bring our legislation
up to date. I hope we are pushing at an open door and I look
forward to the Minister’s gracious speech of acceptance.
(LD)
My Lords, I give the support of our Benches to Amendments 320 and
the consequential amendment, Amendment 328, to which I have put
my name. We also support Amendments 292H and 292J. I ask for the
indulgence of the Committee in allowing me to speak now, as I was
unable to speak at Second Reading. I am also very conscious that
time is short for the weighty matters that we are trying to
achieve today, so I will try to be succinct in covering what
should have been two separate interventions.
The noble Lord, , has summed up only too well why
the Vagrancy Act 1824
should be repealed, so noble Lords will be relieved to know that
I will not repeat his arguments. That we still criminalise
homelessness in 2021 is a stain on our societal conscience. Some
200 years ago, starving children were imprisoned for stealing
bread, people hanged for petty theft and poverty was
attributed—this is the key point—to individual fecklessness. The
fact that vagrancy remains a crime is an anachronistic throwback
to those times and repeal is long overdue.
Having dealt with several police chiefs in my 16 years as a
directly elected mayor, I know that the very fact that begging
and homelessness were in themselves crimes evoked different
attitudes in different offices, in both the council and the
police. This resulted in conflicting approaches to how we should
work and how effective we were. We had to work together and go on
a journey to find a truly multiagency approach. On that journey,
we had to challenge some very firmly held views on the
stereotypes of homelessness and what we believed might work.
Repealing this Act would change this culture and ensure
consistency of approach towards the homeless.
A concern that one might have in agreeing to the amendment is
whether the police would feel that they would be unable to deal
with some of the genuine issues that occur—I know because we have
used some of these tools. When an area has a significant number
of homeless people in the community, would they feel a loss of
some powers? I am sure that the noble Lord, , will expand on that. From
my experience, I know that there are plenty of other arrows in
the antisocial behaviour quiver to deal with such issues. Thus,
we hope that the Government will give serious consideration to
our amendments.
17:00:00
I have briefly mentioned the challenges of partnership working,
and such working is at the heart of Amendments 292H and 292J. As
was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, we have the
Protection from Eviction Act 1977, which, in the vast majority of
cases, works. It ensures that eviction follows due process and,
very importantly, that anyone evicted has a right of appeal. It
gives them more time to find somewhere to live. Most importantly,
they are not deemed to have made themselves intentionally
homeless, which is critical for being eligible for help from the
local authority.
Cutting to the chase, in my experience, the police and local
authorities play pass the buck this one—if they respond at all. A
survey by the charity Safer Renting found widespread ignorance
within police forces of the details of their powers in the Act,
many wrongly believing that it was a civil matter. There was even
some evidence of the police helping landlords to evict illegally.
I am in no doubt that this amendment would strengthen those
partnerships, obliging the police and local authorities to share
information—a point well made by several noble Lords. The data
issues on sharing information are mystifying. Most importantly,
it would act as a deterrent against landlords who are quite
willing to break the law. Almost inevitably, when it comes to
light, they are breaking the law in other housing and tenancy
matters.
The noble Baroness cited the 2019-20 figures. We should be
concerned about the disparity between offences and prosecutions.
It signifies that either the authorities are not taking it
seriously or they are not gathering the correct information to
enable a prosecution. This amendment addresses that. It is also
true that it is usually the vulnerable and marginalised who are
the victims of rogue landlords and they need and deserve our
protection. The Act should be taken seriously. It is not at the
moment. The amendment would ensure that that happens.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, , would also
encourage greater co-operation and collaboration between the
relevant authorities on the protection of children—surely there
is nothing more serious than that. It is necessary, because I
recognise from bitter experience that it is only by working
together that we can begin effectively to challenge these ills in
our society. But it is sometimes necessary for the Government to
do their bit and insist on that co-operation, in order to drag
the agencies to the table to start making a difference by
changing lives in partnership.
(Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 320 and 328, which would
repeal the Vagrancy Act This 197
year-old Act does nothing to tackle and resolve homelessness, and
nor does it prevent antisocial behaviour. In fact, by
criminalising rough sleepers, it prevents them accessing vital
services to support them to move off the streets. This is
important in the context of people trafficking—modern slavery.
Its victims are those likely to end up sleeping rough on the
streets to escape danger. They need our help. Criminalising rough
sleeping marginalises the most vulnerable and may mean that rough
sleepers move away from, not towards vital support. It does not
address the underlying causes.
The Act now has only two effective provisions. Section 3 makes it
an offence in any public place to beg or cause a child to beg. An
offender can be locked up for one month. Section 4 addresses what
we call rough sleeping. It also encompasses those who are in
enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose. This is used to deal
with people who are thought to be “up to no good”. The fact is
that there are perfectly good ways of dealing with all those
people both within and without the criminal law. Indeed, on 9
March the then Secretary of State said in answer to a
Parliamentary Question that the Act should be repealed. In this
amendment, we offer a fully drafted way forward. If minor changes
are needed, they can be made—there is no problem there.
The number of convictions for rough sleeping and begging have
fallen consistently in the past 10 years. Indeed, in 2019—the
most recent year for which figures are available—only one person
received a custodial sentence for begging, and only 16 received a
custodial sentence for being in enclosed premises for an unlawful
purpose. The numbers are tiny. Let us throw away the
sledgehammer. The police, local authorities and other agencies
have ample powers.
Let me explain very briefly. The Highways Act 1980, Section 137,
makes it an offence wilfully to block free passage along the
highway. That is punishable by a fine. The Public Order Act 1986,
Section 5, makes it an offence to use threatening or abusive
words or behaviour. That, too, is punishable by a fine. Moving to
civil measures, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act
2014 introduced a wide range of measures to deal with the
different types of anti-social behaviour. Recourse can properly
be made to those measures for people who are repeat nuisances.
They are all available under the 2014 Act.
Taking it very summarily in the short time available, there are
civil injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance. Breach of
those civil injunctions gives rise to civil contempt, with all
the remedies available for that—up to 2 years’ imprisonment for
the worst offenders, but it is done properly. Secondly, there are
criminal behaviour orders. These can impose requirements as well
as prohibit certain activities. Thirdly, there are community
protection notices. These can be issued by the police, a social
landlord or a local council if behaviour is detrimental to the
quality of life of a local community. Fourthly, there are
dispersal powers, under which a local council, following
consultation with the police, may issue a public spaces
protection order to place restrictions or impose conditions on
activities that people may carry out in the designated area.
In respect of that, since 2014 the Home Office has issued
statutory guidance under the 2014 Act, recently updated this
January. Our amendment, as noble Lords will see from its terms,
will strengthen that. We propose a co-ordinated package. Where
something has to be done, the police and local authorities have
the powers to do it. We ask the House to act now to put an end to
this prehistoric, unjust and inappropriate law. I commend the
amendments.
(CB)
Briefly, I entirely support the repeal of the Vagrancy Act and there
is no point in repeating what have been compelling, eloquent and,
I believe, unanswerable points. Long experience has shown that
arguments do not get better by repetition.
What I wanted to do, however, was to make four quick points from
my experience in support of Amendment 292J in the name of the
noble Lord, . First, the
category of person dealt with is easy to identify. Therefore,
that is not an answer. Secondly, the evidence of the risk of
future offending is compelling. That in relation to Wales is set
out—I need not repeat it—in the report of the Commission on
Justice that I chaired and there is masses of such evidence.
Thirdly, the proposal is plainly value for money. One has only to
look at the cost of what it takes to deal with those who have
gone wrong. Fourthly—surprisingly, some may think—the proposal
would have enormous public support. When we canvassed views about
it, and when I did so as a judge, one always found that the
overwhelming majority felt that these people deserved a chance
and support.
(LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Thornhill has spoken
comprehensively on these amendments, so I can be brief. I thank
the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, for introducing the
amendment. She rightly points to the failure of the current
legislation to adequately deal with this problem on the basis of
the facts that she presented. Something clearly needs to be done
to ensure that the police play their part. If South Yorkshire
Police can do it, why cannot every force? We support this
amendment.
I also thank the noble Lord, , for his Amendment
292J. Noble Lords may have seen the ITV “News at Ten” last night
on how young people are increasingly being exploited,
particularly by drug dealers. That is in addition to a 6%
increase in reported domestic violence during lockdown, when many
more children would have become vulnerable. There is too much
emphasis on the criminal justice system as a way to deal with
these vulnerable young people, rather than there being a
statutory duty on local authorities, the NHS and the police, as
this amendment suggests. We support it.
The noble Lord, , introduced Amendments 320 and
328. I remember being told as a young constable about the
antiquated legislation—the Vagrancy
Act 1824—introduced to deal with soldiers returning from the
Napoleonic wars. That was in 1976—not the Napoleonic wars, when I
was a young constable; they were a bit earlier. People should not
be criminalised simply for begging and sleeping rough. There is
adequate alternative legislation to deal with anti-social
behaviour and the Vagrancy Act is now
redundant. As the explanatory note says, these amendments would
require police officers
“to balance protection of the community with sensitivity to the
problems that cause people to engage in begging or sleeping rough
and ensure that general public order enforcement powers should
not in general be used in relation to people sleeping rough, and
should be used in relation to people begging only where no other
approach is reasonably available.”
On that basis, we support these amendments as well.
(Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I have great
sympathy with the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, to
firmly stamp out the illegal eviction of tenants. This
distressing activity has no place in our society and it is an
unacceptable practice carried out by rogue landlords, perpetrated
on tenants.
I totally agree that the police and local authorities need to
work together to tackle that. Many noble Lords have spoken in
today’s Committee who have experience of this type of multiagency
working. It is essential in terms of supporting the vulnerable,
and there are many examples of that. I always talk about the
troubled families programme, which is one such intervention but
it is such an important one because some people have multiple
problems. It is a fantastic way for agencies to sort them out
together. Local authorities and the police also have mechanisms
in place to work collaboratively to tackle criminal landlords.
The police are also able to establish protocols for information
sharing, which the noble Lord, , spoke about. We
expect them to use those protocols to their full extent to aid
investigations into illegal evictions and enforce the law.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, has examples that suggest a
lack of effective co-operation, I should be very happy to pass
them on to my colleagues in DLUHC. As has been pointed out, there
are lots of good examples of how interventions have worked well,
particularly in Westminster. If there is an issue, the solution
here is not more legislation. The existing powers we have are
sufficient. But I accept that it is incumbent on the police and
local authorities to work collaboratively to tackle crime in
their areas, including on illegal eviction investigations. As
regards the point about police saying that issues are a civil
matter, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of Cradley and
Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, mentioned, the police have powers of
arrest and it is important that those powers are used
appropriately, including on illegal eviction investigations.
17:15:00
As the noble Lord, , explained,
Amendment 292J would provide for a new duty on specified
authorities to collaborate to support children affected by
domestic violence or those children at high risk of criminal
exploitation. We touched on these issues when we were debating
the serious violence duty. Some of my initial comments on the
points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, apply here as
well.
Ensuring that vulnerable children remain protected is such a high
priority for the Government and society. In 2017, we introduced
significant reforms requiring local authorities, clinical
commissioning groups and chief officers of police to form
multiagency safeguarding partnerships. They were fully
established in 2019, and we continue to work across government
and with local partners to ensure that they are as effective as
possible. With strategic oversight from health, policing and
local authority leaders, those multiagency safeguarding
arrangements can co-ordinate identification, protection and
intervention for those at risk of harm in a way that best
responds to local circumstances. I should say that the troubled
families programme often identifies other interventions that are
needed.
As safeguarding partners, local authority, police and health
leaders already have a statutory duty to collaborate in their
child safeguarding functions, which includes working together to
identify and respond to the needs of children in their areas.
These partners are able to name other authorities, as noble Lords
will know, including representatives from the education and
criminal justice sectors, as relevant agencies in their
arrangements. Where named, these agencies are under a statutory
obligation to comply with those arrangements. That duty to
collaborate in supporting children at risk of, or affected by,
these crimes therefore already exists on a statutory footing.
However, we recognise the imperative to give focus to the twin
issues that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised in his
amendment.
(Lab)
Does the noble Baroness accept that there is a problem with that
situation, which happens often at the crisis level and not the
early intervention level? It also excludes any organisation, such
as a voluntary sector agency, that may be working with a child if
they are not one of the three official statutory agencies.
(Con)
What I was trying to say was that legislation is in place but, if
it is not always followed in practice, it would be very helpful
to know about it. However, I accept the final point that the
noble Baroness makes.
I turn to the issues that the noble Lord raises in his amendment.
If you consider first children impacted by domestic abuse, it is
totally unacceptable that some children have to witness abuse
carried out in their home by those whom they should trust the
most. This Government have demonstrated their absolute resolve to
tackle domestic abuse and its impact on children, both in
legislation earlier this year—the Domestic Abuse Act—and through
the upcoming domestic abuse strategy.
As part of the landmark Domestic Abuse Act, children are
recognised as victims of domestic abuse in their own right where
they see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse. This
is an important step which will help ensure that locally
commissioned services continue to consider and address the needs
of children. Further, the Act created the role of the domestic
abuse commissioner in statute to provide public leadership on
domestic abuse issues and to oversee and monitor the provision of
services for victims, including children. The provisions of the
Act came into force on 1 November.
It is really important that young victims receive the right
support at the right time—which was precisely the wording that
the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, used—to help them
cope and recover and to mitigate the long-term impact of their
experiences. We are determined to continue to improve the
standard of support for victims of crime. This year the
Government will provide £150 million to victim support services,
which includes an extra £51 million to increase support for rape
and domestic abuse victims. That includes support for children
and young people.
Through the children affected by domestic abuse fund we have
provided £3 million this year for specialist services for
children who have been affected by domestic abuse. This funding
is enabling a range of therapeutic interventions for children,
such as one-to-one or group support. In addition, the Home Office
is this year providing £169,000-worth of funding to Operation
Encompass, a scheme which connects the police to schools through
a specialist support helpline for teachers concerned about
children experiencing domestic abuse. The helpline was
established during the Covid-19 pandemic, as noble Lords might
recall, and we are continuing to fund it this year.
Turning to the matter of child criminal exploitation, the
Government are investing in specialist support for under-25s and
their families who are affected by county lines exploitation in
the three largest exporting force areas—London, the West Midlands
and Merseyside. The Government are also funding the Children’s
Society’s Prevention Programme, which works to tackle and prevent
child criminal exploitation, child sexual abuse and exploitation,
and modern-day slavery and human trafficking on a regional and
national basis. This has included supporting the #LookCloser
public awareness campaign, which focuses on increasing awareness
and encouraging reporting of the signs and indicators of child
exploitation. We also fund Missing People’s SafeCall service,
which is a national confidential helpline for young people,
families and carers who are concerned about county lines
exploitation.
Through cross-government efforts we are working to identify areas
of learning with regard to child criminal exploitation and
improving our response to it. The Home Office and the Department
for Education are currently testing the effectiveness of how
multi-agency safeguarding partnerships respond to serious
violence and county lines through a series of deep dives. We have
recently received the findings from those reviews and are
considering the best way to share the learning and practice with
local areas.
In the wider landscape, the noble Lord will be aware that the
Government will be consulting on a victims’ Bill. As part of that
consultation, we will seek views on the provision of
community-based support services for victims, including children.
The consultation will carefully look at how local bodies
collaborate to support victims and will consider the evidence to
determine where legislation could be used more effectively.
Therefore, although I am very sympathetic to the aims of the
noble Lord’s amendment, I hope that he is sufficiently reassured
by the extensive ongoing efforts to tackle these two issues, the
existing arrangements in place and, indeed, our plans to consider
the duty to collaborate further as part of the victims’ Bill.
Finally, in relation to Amendments 320 and 328, I agree
wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, , that the time has come—
(LD)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Before we get
on to the Vagrancy Act and the
other amendments, she talked about treating children as victims
of domestic violence if they witness it, and about child criminal
exploitation. There is a third group: children who witness
violence, particularly in the home, and suffer adverse childhood
experiences as a result which lead them into committing crime. I
remember attending a juvenile detention facility in Scotland,
where almost every child in custody had experienced violence in
the home as a cause. The Minister talked about two issues, but
there is this third issue of adverse childhood experiences
leading to offending behaviour, which I believe the noble Lord’s
amendment addresses in a way that the Minister has not.
(Con)
My intention was not to leave out that issue; we could have a
whole debate on the effect of childhood abuse, trauma and
witnessing violence on the future prospects of a person when they
become an adult and their increased likelihood of going on to
abuse, but my intention was not to dismiss it. I apologise that I
did not mention it, but the intention certainly was not to
dismiss it at all.
Finally, I move to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord,
. As I said, the time has come to
reconsider the Vagrancy Act—some of the language that was used is
so antiquated that it would perhaps be alien to some of this
generation. I agree that nobody should be criminalised just
because they have nowhere to live. Back in 2018, we committed to
review the legislation following mixed views among stakeholders
regarding the continued relevance of the Act, given that it is,
as noble Lords have said, nearly 200 years old. I am sure that
noble Lords can understand that announcing the outcome of this
review has been delayed by several factors. One noble Lord
mentioned the dedicated response for vulnerable individuals who
are sleeping rough during the pandemic, which was
outstanding.
It has been imperative to understand the full picture of how and
why the Vagrancy Act is used,
and what impact any change to or repeal of the Act will have.
Rough sleeping and begging are complex issues, and the Act
continues to be used. The review considered a range of factors
and at its heart has been the experiences and perceptions of
relevant stakeholders, including local authorities and the
police. The Act continues to be used to tackle begging, and, if
repealed, a legislative gap would be left that might impact on
the police’s ability to respond to it.
The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is not an
alternative in this context. The powers in the Act are available
to police and local authorities to tackle specific forms of
behaviour that meet the legal tests in that legislation—for
example, behaviour that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or
distress to a victim or community. As I have said, begging is
complex, but plainly it does not always come with these forms of
accompanying behaviours.
(Lab)
I did not speak earlier to save the Committee’s time and please
the Government Whips, but I now have two short questions in
relation to the Minister’s answer.
17:30:00
(Con)
I was just about to say that I have not finished my answer.
Begging is clearly complex but plainly does not always come with
these forms of accompanying behaviours. We must ensure that there
are no unintended consequences in repealing the Act. We carefully
consider the operational impact for the police, who play a very
important role in local partnership approaches to reducing rough
sleeping, as well as ensuring community safety and tackling
crime. Although the police will often not be best placed to
provide support to vulnerable individuals, enforcement can form
part of moving people away from the streets when working closely
with other agencies and coupled with a meaningful offer of
support. It is important that the police have effective tools to
respond to behaviour that can impact negatively on
communities.
The anti-social behaviour powers to which my noble friend referred do not have the
immediacy of a criminal offence. We need to consider further
whether there is a continued place for criminal law in tackling
begging.
As I have previously stated, the Government do not wholeheartedly
agree that the Vagrancy Act is
outdated and inappropriate—I am sorry; we do agree. I am quite
tired today. The Government agree that the Vagrancy
Act is outdated and inappropriate for modern-day society.
However, as I have outlined, it needs to be considered alongside
consideration of what more modern replacement legislation should
look like.
To that end, in relation to subsection (4) of the proposed new
clause, I share noble Lords’ ambition to make sure that those who
are rough sleeping are supported appropriately. We know that not
all individuals who are rough sleeping beg and that not all
individuals who beg are rough sleeping. There is a range of
circumstances in which an individual may beg, including forced
begging; a perpetual cycle of begging can have a detrimental
impact on the health of an individual, as well as impeding
engagement with support. We also know that some people engage in
begging with various motives. Where an individual is truly
destitute, it is paramount that a multiagency approach is wrapped
around them to provide the necessary support, but we must
recognise that this does not always happen. We need to ensure
that legislation creates the right environment in which to
deliver effective services and engage with vulnerable people
constructively.
In relation to subsection (5), I am not convinced that additional
guidance is needed on the use of anti-social behaviour
legislation beyond existing statutory guidance. The Anti-social
Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 was introduced to provide
simple and effective powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, and
existing statutory guidance makes it clear that those powers are
not there to target vulnerable people based solely on the fact
that they are homeless or begging without there being
accompanying behaviour that meets specific legal tests.
Therefore, we believe that the position that subsections (3) to
(7) of the proposed new clause seek to specify are an
already-established position reflected in statutory guidance.
I accept that these are relative points of detail about the
drafting of the noble Lord’s amendment. The central point is that
the Government are committed to completing their review of
the Vagrancy Act as soon as
practicable. This helpful and timely debate will inform that
process. I would like to extend an offer on behalf of , the Minister for Rough
Sleeping, to meet the noble Lord, , and other noble Lords who have
spoken in the debate ahead of the next stage.
(Con)
Was the former Secretary of State, , speaking on behalf of the
Government when he said that the Vagrancy
Act should be repealed?
(Con)
When I voiced my support for something needing to be done about
the Vagrancy Act there was
a general acknowledgement that something needs to be done about
it. I extend the invitation to the noble Lord, Lord Best—and,
indeed, to my noble friend as well if he so wishes—because it
would be an important discussion ahead of the next stage. What I
was trying to say in my rather long-winded explanation is that
there are some complex things in the Vagrancy
Act that need to be unpicked and understood, with
consideration of the legislation on the back of that.
(Lab)
I hope that this is an appropriate time for me to ask the
Minister two questions in relation to her answer on this
group.
First, in contrast with the Minister’s answer to the subsequent
amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill
Top, the answer to Amendment 292H in the name of my noble friend
Lady Blake seemed to be that there are adequate powers for local
authorities and the police to work together to protect people
from unlawful eviction. However, there is obviously a difference
between powers and duties. The intention behind this neat and
compelling amendment is to do what the Government have tried to
do in other aspects of this draft legislation: create a duty for
people who already have powers to prioritise a problem and work
together. Why not prioritise protection from eviction in the way
that other types of crime have been prioritised, with duties and
not just powers, in other parts of the Bill?
Secondly, I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer on
vagrancy. I do not understand why, if begging is not causing
harassment to people, it is a crime at all. The Minister talked
about two sides of the begging problem: it is bad for the person
who has to do it and potentially bad for the people who
experience it. If it is bad for the people who experience it,
there are, as the noble Lord, , set out, adequate criminal
laws, whether in anti-social behaviour or in other legislation,
that cover unwanted harassment. If it is just about protecting
people from unhealthy behaviours, we do not do that by
criminalising people for being desperate and poor. When she meets
her noble friends to discuss this amendment, will the Minister
look at whether this review cannot be speeded up in time for
Report? The Government seem able to move very quickly when it
comes to adding extra powers to suppress protests, but it takes
hundreds of years to repeal the Vagrancy Act
(Con)
I am sure that, when my noble friend and the noble Lord, , meet Minister Hughes, they will
cover some of the points made by the noble Baroness.
I do not think that this is about an acknowledgement that there
are adequate powers; it is about the application of those powers.
As I said to the noble Baroness, if there are deficiencies in
collaboration at the local level, it would be helpful if they
were brought to my attention.
(CB)
I did not want to interrupt or contribute to this debate because
there have been many eloquent speeches, but I want to ask the
Minister a granular question. This is going to turn into a shaggy
dog story in which everybody agrees that this 200 year-old
legislation is out of date unless somebody sits down and does
something serious about it with the intention of bringing the
discussion to an end. As a question of fact, has parliamentary
counsel ever been instructed to produce, or try to produce,
legislation to replace the Vagrancy Act If not,
why not? If so, can we know something about the result?
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for trying to wrap the discussion up in
that one important question. I will take it away. When my noble
friend and the noble Lord, , speak to , the Minister, we will see
what progress has been made at that stage. But at this stage, I
wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, will be happy to
withdraw her amendment.
(Lab)
I apologise for interrupting. We have had an hour and 19 minutes
on this, but the answer that the Minister gave on the problems
with Amendment 320, to which I have put my name, were difficult
to follow. She made the point that begging or sleeping rough does
not in itself amount to action causing alarm or distress in the
absence of other factors under the 2014 Act, with which I agree
and which the drafters of Amendment 320 explicitly reflect in
subsection (3). I am simply unable to understand her reasons for
not accepting Amendment 320.
This is important. It is not possible to say, “Well, here are
some incomprehensible reasons that nobody in the Chamber
understands, therefore we need the completion of a review.” I did
not follow whether the review is part of the way through, whether
it is finished or whether there is an expected date for its
conclusion. Will the Minister answer two questions? First, what
is wrong with Amendment 320 if it precisely reflects what she
said? Secondly, where has the review got to? When did it start
and when will it finish?
(Con)
As for what is wrong with Amendment 320, I explicitly said to the
noble Lord, , that the Government agree that
the time has come to consider the Vagrancy Act
There is an opportunity to speak to the appropriate Minister
before Report to answer some of the questions that have been
asked this afternoon. I do not know the answer to the second
question, but I will write.
(Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the contributions that we have heard
this afternoon. They have been incredibly thoughtful and based on
evidence. On my Amendment 292H, we have heard many examples
supporting the words that I used: there is evidence out there of
what works, in the same way that there is evidence of what does
not work. This is a real opportunity to get to grips with this
issue for the sake of the victims of eviction and their families.
I assure the Minister that everyone who has access to evidence
will be extremely happy to supply it, with the expectation that
it will be considered as we make further progress with this Bill.
This is a real opportunity to get things right.
I thought that I was going back a long way, to 1997, not back 200
years, but it clearly is not good enough that, where there are
powers, they are not being used. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti
put it well: there must be an express duty to focus minds. It is
not enough for us to say that in certain parts of the country
this is being done. I can attest from my time as leader of Leeds
City Council that there was incredible progress in this area and
a real expectation that everyone would come to the table. Not
sharing data was never an excuse. It was expected and supported
by all the partners. It can be done everywhere but it is not
being done everywhere. The resources are not there within the
police or local authorities—they are diminishing—to ensure that
enforcement is seen through. We are talking about innocent
victims who suffer from the lack of enforcement. I made the point
that all we are asking for is a simple change, through the
amendment, that would bring to an end so much misery for people
that does not need to happen.
17:45:00
I pay tribute to my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lady Armstrong
for the work that has gone into their Amendment 292J. I support
all the comments that were made about appropriate intervention at
the right time. I get incredibly disappointed standing here and
raising points while being told that millions of pounds are being
spent. If they are not being spent properly and appropriately to
have the necessary intervention to deal with the problem up
front, then we all have some responsibility for accounting for
that.
I hope that everyone agrees that more thought needs to be put
into this. I sensed that the Minister had some sympathy with our
expressions of frustration in both these areas and I hope that we
can come to some accommodation, because it seems to me that we
will miss a real opportunity if we do not bring this forward. The
Public Services Committee, chaired so ably by my noble friend
Lady Armstrong, has made the case clearly, as supported by other
members today, for the early intervention model. This focuses on
children. We know that when you get that early intervention
right, not only do you get better outcomes for children and young
people, as well as their families, but the resource that you
spend can effectively be ploughed back and reinvested in
supporting the early intervention that we know works. I am sure
that all of us will supply any amount of evidence to demonstrate
those points.
I am grateful for the interventions from my noble and learned
friend Lord Falconer and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti on
Amendments 320 and 328. I feel that we will be forced to come
back to this issue. Again, this seems an incredibly wasted
opportunity. We need to get this right and move on because, as we
know, the opportunities to get a grip of this issue are few and
far between. I hope that we will continue these discussions and
that my noble friends will be included in those further
discussions, particularly around the review and other matters. I
also hope that we can move to some sensible, timely changes in
what has been proposed. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my
amendment.
|
