Asked by
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
To ask His Majesty’s Government what further consideration they
have given to using the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to
repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824 to end criminalisation of
homelessness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Levelling Up, Housing & Communities () (Con)
My Lords, the Government are clear that the Vagrancy Act is
antiquated and not fit for purpose and that people should not be
criminalised for simply having nowhere to live. When we committed
to repeal the Act, we said that we would do so once suitable
replacement legislation was brought forward. We set out our plans
in the Anti-social Behaviour Action Plan to ensure that local
authorities and the police have appropriate tools to keep people
safe, and that vulnerable people can access health and services.
LURB is a large Bill already. Vagrancy is a complex policy that
requires careful consideration and scrutiny, and we will table
legislation at the right opportunity.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, in March 2022, the Minister the noble Lord, , who I am pleased to
see in his place, committed to repealing the Vagrancy Act within
18 months. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley noted in May
this year that this Act, which refers to the homeless as “idle
and disorderly Persons” deemed to be
“Rogues and Vagabonds … committed to the House of Correction”
is still being used to criminalise 1,000 homeless people a year.
A quick check on the College of Policing website shows over 15
pieces of legislation which give police and councils the powers
they need to tackle anti-social behaviour and aggressive begging.
Why will the Government not use the levelling-up Bill to confine
the Vagrancy Act to history, where it belongs, before its 200th
birthday?
(Con)
My Lords, the Vagrancy Act, as I have said, is an outdated piece
of legislation; I agree with the noble Baroness that it needs
repealing. However, the House rules on admissibility of
amendments are set out in the Companion; amendments we have
consulted on that were related to repealing the vagrancy offences
have not been considered admissible to the levelling-up Bill. We
would not normally discuss the clerks’ advice in the Chamber, but
I am sure that they will be very happy to discuss it in the usual
way with her.
(Con)
My Lords, an amendment was moved by the noble Lord, , to the police and crime Bill to
enable abolition to take place, and the consultation to see what,
if anything, needed to be carried forward ended in May last year.
Against all the commitments that have been given, are we really
going to have the Vagrancy Act 1824 still on the statute book in
1924? Oh, I mean 2024.
(Con)
My noble friend is right. We did consult when the Vagrancy Act
was within DLUHC, and the Home Office is holding further
discussions particularly with those stakeholders who are
important in local authorities, such as the police. However, the
anti-social behaviour plan, which was published last March,
outlined further details of our plans to introduce new powers for
local authorities and police to respond to begging and rough
sleeping, coupling this with improved multiagency working between
local partners so that vulnerable individuals receive the support
they need. This is a complex issue, and further details will be
set out in future legislation at the earliest possible
parliamentary opportunity.
(CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is rather disheartening
to the way in which we operate when the correct processes are
followed—an amendment is carried in this House by a large
majority, it goes back to the House of Commons for a second
thought, the House of Commons decides to support us, Parliament
then passes legislation to repeal the Vagrancy Act—and then
nothing happens?
(Con)
As I have said, this is a really complex issue. We need to get
this right and to be talking to people. The noble Lord is right
that we have committed to repeal the Vagrancy Act as part of the
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. We have started
the consultation, we are discussing with stakeholders but, as I
have said, we will look for the proper place in legislation, and
the proper piece of legislation is not LURB.
of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I am happy to hear the formula about the right place
and the right time. My experience of working with homeless people
is that there is only one right time, and it is now. In view of
the fact that so much has already happened in the recent past—so
many exchanges, so many decisions—do the Government not feel that
the right time and the right place is as near now as
possible?
(Con)
That is exactly what I have just said—the right time is now, and
we are making our final consultations and will look for the right
piece of legislation as soon as possible. My department will work
very closely with the Home Office so that this new legislation
ensures that vulnerable individuals are always directed to the
most appropriate support. It is not just about getting rid of an
old-fashioned law.
(CB)
While we are at it, can we do something about no-fault evictions
at the same time? They are driving people into homelessness on
the streets—including my brother.
(Con)
The noble Lord should know that we have the private renters’ Bill
starting in the Commons shortly, which will include the repeal of
Section 21.
(Con)
My Lords, surely these consultations have gone on long enough. My
noble friend got the date slightly
wrong, but can my noble friend Lady Scott confirm that this will
be well off the statute book by 2124?
(Con)
My Lords, I am sure the House realises that I cannot possibly
confirm that as I cannot pre-empt anything that might be in the
King’s Speech.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has mentioned a number of times that she
will bring this forward in suitable legislation. She must have
some legislation in mind. What is it?
(Con)
My Lords, I never said that I would bring it forward—I said that
the Government would. It is now in the hands of the Home Office,
which is dealing with this.
(LD)
My Lords, rough sleepers are just the thin end of the wedge, as
the noble Baroness knows. Part of the long-term solution to
homelessness must be to build many more homes for social rent
and, in particular, to increase the public sector’s role in
building them. Given the additional financial pressures there are
on social housing providers, as we both know—not least the decent
homes standard, net-zero homes, fire safety and increased
construction costs—will the Government commit to a minimum
10-year rent deal for these landlords to allow a longer period of
annual rent increases and long-term certainty so that they can
plan to build more much-needed social homes?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we need more homes in
this country—more affordable homes and more homes for social
rent. That is why we are putting £11.5 billion into the
affordable homes programme and, importantly, working with local
authorities to ensure that they look at every possible way of
using the £500 million we are giving them to keep people in their
homes in the first place, rather than becoming homeless.
(Con)
My noble friend said that this is incredibly complicated and that
replacement legislation for the Vagrancy Act must be considered.
Can she share with us what laws have to be replaced, as many
noble Lords feel that it should be very simple to abolish it
now?
(Con)
I am not prepared to say what legislation might go. Part of this
is not about what legislation goes but how much support we can
give those individuals in trying to get them off the streets and
into homes.
of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, in answering a number of questions, the noble Baroness
has referred to stakeholders in the consultation. Who has a stake
in retaining the Vagrancy Act?
(Con)
Nobody has a stake in retaining it, but many organisations have a
stake in what would replace it—the police, local authorities, the
third sector, faith communities and all those people involved in
not only changing the law but giving support to those very
vulnerable people who may need our help.
