Amendment 160 Moved by Lord Best 160: After Clause 62, insert the
following new Clause— “Repeal of Vagrancy Act 1824 (1)
The Vagrancy Act 1824 is repealed.(2) In this
section—“the 2014 Act” means the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and
Policing Act 2014;“begging” means asking for gifts on streets or in
other public places (for which purpose it is immaterial whether
gifts are of money or in kind, whether they are expressed
as...Request free trial
Amendment 160
Moved by
160: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause—
“Repeal of Vagrancy Act 1824
(1) The Vagrancy Act 1824 is
repealed.(2) In this section—“the 2014 Act” means the Anti-social
Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;“begging” means asking for
gifts on streets or in other public places (for which purpose it
is immaterial whether gifts are of money or in kind, whether they
are expressed as gifts or as loans, and whether a person asks
expressly or impliedly, by displaying receptacles for donations
or otherwise; but “begging” does not include soliciting donations
to a registered charity with the express written authority of
that charity);“registered charity” means a charity registered
under section 30 of the Charities Act 2011, or exempted or
excepted from registration under or by virtue of that section;
and “sleeping rough” means sleeping (or making preparations to
sleep, or possessing bedding or other equipment for the purpose
of sleeping) on streets or in other public places, or in places
or structures not designed for human habitation.(3) The following
principles are to be applied in the exercise of powers under the
2014 Act—(a) begging or sleeping rough does not in itself amount
to action causing alarm or distress (in the absence of other
factors);(b) policing and other enforcement action should balance
protection of the community with sensitivity to the problems that
cause people to engage in begging or sleeping rough; and(c)
powers under the 2014 Act 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.(4) A constable or other person exercising functions
under the 2014 Act, or considering whether to exercise functions
under that Act, in connection with a person who has been, or may
have been, involved in begging or sleeping rough, must consider
whether the person could be referred to public authorities, or
charitable or other persons, for help in addressing the problems
that cause them to be involved in begging or sleeping rough.(5)
The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local authorities
and police forces about the implementation of subsections (3) and
(4).(6) Local authorities and police forces must—(a) have regard
to the guidance; and(b) take reasonable steps to provide
education and training designed to ensure consistent and
effective implementation of subsections (3) and (4).(7) Before
issuing (or revising) the guidance the Secretary of State must
consult—(a) representatives of police forces;(b) representatives
of local authorities; and(c) persons representing the interests
of homeless persons.(8) The following enactments are repealed (in
consequence of subsection (1))—(a) the Vagrancy
Act 1898;(b) the Vagrancy Act 1935;(c)
sections 20(1)(g) and 24(1)(f) of the Sentencing Act 2020;(d)
section 55(2)(b) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006;(e)
paragraph 18 of Schedule 8 to the Serious Organised Crime and
Police Act 2005;(f) paragraphs 3(3)(b) and 7(3) of Schedule 3C to
the Police Reform Act 2002;(g) paragraph 2(3)(aa) of Schedule 5
to that Act;(h) paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice
and Court Services Act 2000;(i) section 43(5) of the Mental
Health Act 1983;(j) section 70 of the Criminal Justice Act
1982;(k) section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967;(l) in
section 48(2) of the Forestry Act 1967, the words “or against
the Vagrancy Act 1824”;(m)
in section 20(4) of the New Towns Act (Northern Ireland) 1965,
the words “or against section 4 of the Vagrancy
Act 1824”;(n) section 2(3)(c) of the House to House
Collections Act 1939; and (o) in section 81 of the Public Health
Acts Amendment Act 1907, the words “shall for the purpose of
the Vagrancy Act 1824 and
of any Act for the time being in force altering or amending the
same, be deemed to be an open and public place, and”.(9) This
section extends to England and Wales only.(10) This section comes
into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with
the date of Royal Assent.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824
and establish that begging or sleeping rough is not itself
criminal; it 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.
(CB)
My Lords, I apologise for being forced to move Amendment 160 and
to speak to amendment 165 at this ridiculous hour. I hope that
your Lordships can please hang on for just another few minutes,
and I express my deep appreciation to those who have stayed to
support these amendments to the Vagrancy
Act 1824, which would be repealed by Amendment 160. I pay
tribute to my colleagues from all parts of the House who are
supporting this amendment, not least the noble Lord, , the erstwhile
distinguished Housing Minister responsible for the important
rough sleepers initiative in earlier times; the noble Lord,
, who has helped us with
invaluable legal expertise; and Crisis—with congratulations and
thanks to its new chief executive, Matt Downie—for its powerful
campaigning on this repeal.
We discussed these amendments in Committee, and subsequently a
number of us met with the Minister here today and the Minister
for Rough Sleeping and Housing, . They explained that the
Government are fully committed to repealing the law that makes
homelessness a criminal act—but not necessarily now. Currently,
the Vagrancy Act turns
unfortunate casualties of our housing and care systems into
criminals and deters them from seeking the protection and support
they need to move away from the streets.
The shadow of the totally inappropriate Vagrancy
Act still hangs over the public policy framework for
homelessness and rough sleeping. The Government have done some
really good work in helping thousands of homeless people into
safe accommodation during the Covid crisis. These efforts may
justify past delays in addressing the repeal of the Vagrancy Act but any
further delay would seriously undermine the reputation of the
Government in this field.
12.15am
Ministers promised us a note to explain the problem. On Friday we
received the promised response from Ministers, six weeks after
our meeting and after we had sent a number of plaintive requests
asking for the information urgently so we could tweak our
amendment if necessary. Friday’s email finally explained that the
outstanding worry concerned passive begging—begging that did not
cause harm, annoyance, distress, et cetera—and that a review of
this issue was still needed. This response came too late, of
course, for us to devise and table a revised amendment for
consideration tonight.
However, the position is not irredeemable. We responded to
Ministers with a proposal for a simple amendment to repeal just
Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act which
covers rough sleeping, to be tabled by the Government or by us
with government agreement at Third Reading. We also proposed to
Ministers that they consider separately Section 3 of
the Vagrancy Act which
covers begging. It is disappointing that the Government need more
time to reflect on this part, given that the review of the Act
was completed a few years ago, but it is clear that the
Government are willing to look at the repeal of the begging
section of the old Act as a matter of some urgency. To put their
intention on the record and to demonstrate willingness to move
this forward as fast as possible, we have proposed that Ministers
give us the assurance that following their review they will bring
the begging issues swiftly into consequent legislation introduced
in the next parliamentary Session, for example with an amendment
to an appropriate Bill such as a housing Bill.
Agreement on these two steps—an amendment at Third Reading to
repeal only rough sleeping legislation and an urgent review of
the begging issues thereafter—may not be exactly what we
originally hoped, but they would take us a long way to righting
the long-standing wrong of the moribund,
objectionable Vagrancy Act 1824. I
await the Minister’s response with some trepidation, and I beg to
move.
(Con)
My Lords, I will add a very short footnote to the excellent
speech of the noble Lord, , and pay tribute to the way that
he has spearheaded the campaign to repeal the Vagrancy Act He has
summarised the case for repeal succinctly. Nearly a year ago, on
25 February, the then Secretary of State said that the Act had
been reviewed and, in his opinion, “should be repealed”. He said
that it was
“an antiquated piece of legislation whose time has been and
gone.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/21; col. 1138.]
Since then, the noble Lord, , and others have consulted
extensively with a range of stakeholders—the police, local
government, housing charities and legal experts—confirming the
view that the Act is indeed redundant and can safely be repealed,
with other, more up-to-date pieces of legislation to deal with
aggressive behaviour. That took us to Committee stage, when the
Government applied the brakes.
To get an insight into the Government’s reservations —as the
noble Lord has just said—we met Ministers on 2 December and asked
for details of why they believed that sections of the Act were
still needed. We needed that so we could amend, if necessary, our
amendments for Report and avoid a Division. We were told we could
have the necessary details. Here, I am afraid, the Department for
Levelling Up, whose policy area this is, has let my noble friend
the Minister down. Despite repeated reminders, as we have just
heard, only on the last working day before today did we get the
reply—far too late to table amendments, six weeks after the
meeting and with arguments I found less than compelling. As we
are trying to deliver what is stated government policy, I think
the performance of that department fell below the standard that
we were entitled to receive.
The noble Lord, , has set out what seems to me a
perfectly respectable compromise, which even at this late stage
would enable us to withdraw the amendment, and I hope that the
Minister can agree to it. If not, then with some regret—because
we have been willing to compromise throughout—I will support the
amendment and hope it goes to the other place, where we know it
will have support not just from the former Secretary of State but
from Conservative Members of Parliament in London, including the
former leader of Westminster City Council. I support the
amendment.
(LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendments in the name
of the noble Lord, , to which I have added my name.
In view of the hour, I too will be brief, as the two noble Lords
have already said it all. I thank the Minister for the time that
she gave us both in meetings and in numerous emails. I genuinely
believe that there is real commitment to undoing this blot on our
societal conscience. Therefore, given the genuineness of that
feeling, it is massively disappointing that it appears that the
Government have decided not to seize the only opportunity that we
can see in the legislative calendar to actually repeal this piece
of legislation.
There is widespread support for repealing this Act. To do so
would actually be popular and uncontroversial, unlike much of
this Bill. It is unequivocally the right thing to do. The fact
that in Scotland it has been repealed for years and that most
police forces rarely, if ever, use the powers in the Act is
surely evidence enough that, in reality, it is of little use in
tackling the current issues of homelessness, where there are, as
the noble Lord, , said, a raft of
alternative measures at the disposal of the police and local
authorities. It will be a great disappointment for many if this
can is to be kicked further down the road. That is why, if it
comes to a vote, we will be supporting the noble Lord, . To steal a slogan from somewhere
else, why do not the Government “Just Do It”?
(Lab)
My Lords, your Lordships’ House can be proud tonight for seeking
to prevent injustices well into the future, but in seeking to
support the noble Lord, , we can try to act on injustices
that are nearly 200 years old.
(Lab)
My Lords, we will be supporting the noble Lord, , if he chooses to press his
amendment to a vote. If I may refer briefly to my experiences as
a magistrate, it is indeed true that we do not actually see this
charge brought very often—of course, we do see beggars, but it
really is not that often. It seems to me that there is widespread
cross-party support for repealing the Act. A compromise has been
put forward by the noble Lord, , and I will be interested in
hearing the Minister’s response. If the noble Lord does choose to
press his amendment, we will support him.
(Con)
My Lords, I will join other noble Lords in trying to be brief,
given the lateness of the hour. I thank the noble Lord, , my noble friend , and the noble
Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their commitment on this issue. I
can only apologise that the letter was so late in returning to
them.
I assured noble Lords in Committee, and I do so again now, that
the Government firmly agree that no one should be criminalised
simply for having nowhere to live or for sleeping rough. The
Government’s dedication to supporting this group has been at the
centre of our response to the pandemic, as the noble Lord, , has said. We have also recently
provided £28 million to local authorities to support them to
promote vaccination among people sleeping rough and to provide
emergency accommodation to get people off the streets. That
builds on the success of the Everyone In programme.
The Government are fully committed to reviewing the Vagrancy Act but the
review has been delayed by the pandemic and by our resulting
endeavours to protect vulnerable individuals. In Committee, I
explained that rough sleeping and begging were complex issues,
and that we therefore must give due consideration to how and why
the Vagrancy Act was still
used to tackle begging and what impact any changes to the Act
will have. This includes consideration of any legislative gap
left by repeal that may impact the police’s moves to deal with
begging.
The noble Lord spoke about the way the Anti-social Behaviour,
Crime and Policing Act 2014 can be used to deal with certain
types of begging, but that Act is not always a suitable
alternative. Begging is complex and does not always meet the
legal tests in the 2014 legislation to allow the police or local
authorities to tackle specific forms of begging where
intervention may still be useful, specifically passive begging,
where there is no associated anti-social behaviour but where,
none the less, there might be an impact on communities as well as
the individual. For example, someone who is sleeping rough might
engage in passive begging and might use that money to survive on
the street. They might be resistant to taking up offers of
support, and this might have an indirect impact on communities or
businesses. In such circumstances, there would be nothing the
police could do to help compel the individual to take up
support.
There are also international examples of different approaches
taken to tackle begging, including passive begging, that we
should consider. For example, should the police be able to
intervene if begging affects businesses or, as in some countries,
if begging is opportunistic, for example near an ATM, or
fraudulent, such as feigning injury or illness?
The Government think that enforcement, when coupled with
meaningful offers of support and close work with other agencies,
can form an important part of moving people away from the
streets. It is vital that the police can play their part here and
that they have effective legislation at their fingertips, but
this position does not negate the Government’s firm view that
rough sleeping should not be criminalised and, where an
individual is truly destitute, it is paramount that a multiagency
approach is taken to provide that necessary support. To ensure
that the response is effective, we need legislation that
complements the delivery of services and allows for constructive
engagement with vulnerable individuals. I recently wrote to the
noble Lord with more information on the detail of our
position.
As it stands, an outright repeal of the Vagrancy
Act might leave a gap. That is why, as I explained when I
met with the noble Lord, once the necessary work has been
concluded, the Government are committed to repealing the outdated
Act and replacing it with much more modern, fit-for-purpose
legislation when parliamentary time allows. Until we have
completed this work, it would be a bit premature to repeal the
Act. In the light of the commitment that I have outlined,
confirming that the Government will consult on what the
appropriate legislation should look like, I ask the noble Lord to
withdraw his amendment.
(CB)
My Lords, I am sincerely grateful to noble Lords who supported
the case for repeal of the Vagrancy Act I thank
the Minister for her comments, but I confess to being very
disappointed that she has not been able to commit to a Third
Reading amendment covering the repeal of just the rough sleeping
part of the Vagrancy Act Even
though she made it clear that this will happen sometime one day,
she has not been able to announce that this step will be taken at
Third Reading. I really see no reason why we could not come to an
agreement on this amendment, which is limited but repeals the
most egregious aspect of the old Vagrancy Act
However, the Minister has rejected our proposals, which means
that people who are homeless will remain subject to being
criminalised rather than being supported out of their predicament
into the indefinite future. My only course of action is to hope
that this can be resolved in the Commons. I would like to test
the opinion of the House.
[Division 14
Division on Amendment 160
Content
144
Not Content
101
Amendment 160 agreed.
|
