King’s Speech
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, yesterday, following the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Newby, the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord True, accused the Liberal Democrats of a lack of optimism. The noble Lord is observant; that lack of optimism pervades the whole country. If the King’s Speech is the Government’s response to that lack of optimism, it has certainly done nothing to raise spirits. Never in the whole time that I have been in your Lordships’ House have I heard a government programme so lacklustre, so failing in vision and so meaningless in improving the lives of the people of this country.
People rightly feel pessimistic, and the Government have made that infinitely worse by undermining faith in democracy. People have seen the lying day after day, as the Covid inquiry is now uncovering. People have seen a system brought in by the Conservative Government to fast-track cronies’ access to massive lucrative contracts. I believe that the National Crime Agency is still vigorously pursuing the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, and her husband.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke earlier about the fact that we should tighten up a lot of the House’s rules and clean up our act; I thoroughly agreed with that part of his speech. The House needs to review, for example, whether taking leave of absence in circumstances such as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, is an abuse of leave meant to cover illness, caring or serious work elsewhere. The House of Lords is a serious legislative Chamber and to have Members use and abuse their position here to line their own pockets is an utter disgrace.
The eroding of democracy also happens when the Government ignore Parliament. As other noble Lords have mentioned, Parliament voted to stop criminalising the homeless by getting rid of the Vagrancy Act, but the Government never actioned that. The Lords tried to get rid of it again in the levelling-up Act, but the Government used their majority in the Commons to make sure that that did not happen. Perhaps we have a hint as to why: the Home Secretary thinks homelessness is a “lifestyle choice”. Apparently, as other noble Lords have also mentioned, she is said to be considering penalising charities that are helping the homeless by providing shelter in the form of tents—which is about as low as it gets.
The Government also ignored Parliament’s vote to provide a buffer zone around abortion clinics so that women seeking help are not subjected to aggressive anti-abortion action and abuse—another very humane and important measure that Parliament really wanted but the Government have just not actioned.
A cynical government ploy is to get favourable headlines by promising a Bill and then dropping it. For example, measures to address dog theft more seriously and the import of puppy-farmed dogs were in the Speech for the last Session of Parliament, but the Government just dropped them—and they are not in the new animal welfare Bill. I expect that several more Bills in yesterday’s gracious Speech are for the same cynical purpose.
Right now, many noble Lords will share my view that it is hard to think of legislation and detail in the face of the situation in Gaza. At a time of immense tension, the Government’s role should be to encourage tolerance. People need to express their views and feelings, providing that they are not inciting hatred. The Home Secretary described the forthcoming march on Saturday as a “hate march”; that is truly dangerous, provocative and disgraceful language. Most people who want to march are marching for a humanitarian settlement and for peace; they are not marching out of hate. I commend the Metropolitan Police for its measured stance on this, and I hope that it continues to hold its nerve in the face of government pressure. Some people have said that Armistice Day is not a suitable day for a march. I disagree; I think that the point of remembering war, besides remembering those who died, is to become even stronger advocates for peace.
European Union Referendum Bill
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(d) the persons who fall within subsection (4).”
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, these amendments seek to extend the Westminster franchise to those British citizens who have lived in the EU for more than 15 years. This extension to the franchise is an exception in the same way that the Bill allows for Members of your Lordships’ House to vote in the referendum.
In Committee, we heard many examples of why these British citizens should be enabled to vote in the referendum. I will not repeat all of them but simply remind the House that many in this currently excluded group have spent the whole of their working lives working for Britain. Many receive government pensions as they were soldiers, nurses or civil servants and so they pay UK taxes. In Committee, one of the points made—which was conceded even by those who seem to oppose this amendment—was that there should be no taxation without representation.
Many other people working in the EU are there because they are flying the flag for Britain. They have been encouraged by successive Governments of this country to expand their careers and look to the EU. For some this started when they were at university, with the Erasmus scheme getting them to spend time at EU universities, and for others it is because the UK has developed partnerships with firms such as Airbus. So Governments have encouraged British citizens to look on the whole of the EU as a place to study, work and live, and they cannot now pull the rug from under their feet. They should at least give them a say in whether that rug is pulled.
In Committee, some noble Lords could not understand why being a British expat in the EU is different from being an expat in, say, Singapore or Australia. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, put it so succinctly, it is because of the network of arrangements upon which our citizens relied when they made their choice to live and work in the EU.
When I reflected on the Government’s response in Committee, I could not understand why they are not keen to enfranchise this group of citizens. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, in her place because she asked a very important question. If the Government believe it is right for British citizens to vote in future general elections, as announced in their manifesto, why is it not right to give these people a vote in a referendum that will have a greater impact on their lives than a general election? The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, rightly said that it will be incomprehensible to our fellow citizens living abroad that a manifesto commitment cannot be implemented, by one means or another, to participate in a vote of such overwhelming importance.
When I reread the proceedings of the Committee stage, the only arguments I could find were from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who said that the Electoral Commission would not know where the expats lived or who they were. However, the answer is that if you want to enfranchise them, they will apply for a franchise—they have passport numbers, national insurance numbers and fixed addresses—and, after all, those who have lived in the EU for 14, 13 or 12 years can register. It is only those above 15 years who cannot. Surely the Government would not deny such people the right to vote simply on that basis. It cannot be that difficult.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, seemed to be against this exceptional franchise because she does not want to set a precedent for votes for life, which her party is against. I say to her that this enfranchisement is exceptional and should not set a precedent. The noble Baroness used the phrase about those working in the EU flying the flag for their country. I am sure she believes that and I wonder whether she might soften her position.
In replying for the Government, when it came down to not wishing to agree with the amendment, the Minister said that he was simply concerned with legitimacy. He wanted no sense that there had been an attempt to skew the result. He felt that the “safest way” to do this was to stick with the Westminster franchise. We should be looking not at safety but at the fairest way. In any case, we are not sticking with the Westminster franchise because we have already made a couple of exceptions. The Government have accepted them and they are in the Bill.
All I am asking for here is that those who have lived in the EU for more than 15 years can join with those who have lived there for a shorter time, and that for the referendum they may exceptionally have the right to vote on a really important matter for this country and for them. I beg to move.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. We had a good debate about this in Committee and I think we established rather clearly that there is in fact no difference of principle on this matter between those who supported the amendment and the Minister who opposed it. His party has a manifesto commitment, which I am sure it is going to fulfil, to introduce legislation in this Parliament to give the vote to precisely the people we are talking about; that is, people who have been living abroad for more than 15 years. Admittedly, he is going to do that erga omnes and not just for those in the European Union, but there seems to me to be no difference of principle between us.
Nor does this amendment cross in any sense the line that has been frequently prayed in aid in previous debates—that this is a referendum which British people should be deciding. These people are British. They hold British passports and they are our citizens. The reason to give them the vote is that we are having a referendum which could fundamentally affect a large amount of the way in which they live. It could affect their healthcare arrangements, their ability to travel freely, their social coverage, their jobs and the way their children are treated. This is a huge range of things that could and will be affected if by any chance—mischance, in my view—the electorate votes to withdraw from the European Union. Yet the Government, who want these people to have the vote and believe that they are rightly going to be given the vote under their own proposals to be brought forward later in this Parliament, feel that they should not have it in the one vote which they really mind about. They are probably not all that interested in voting in our parliamentary, municipal and other elections, but they jolly well are interested in this referendum because their interests are at stake.
It would be really good if the Government could take a deep breath and say, “Yes, we agree that these people should have the vote because that is what our manifesto says, and we agree that this referendum vote matters more to them than anything else”. The Government have been saying for years now that the people must have their say. Did they really mean to exclude British citizens living elsewhere in the EU from having their say when their interests will be affected? I hope that we can move ahead with the amendment. Not only does it have logic and consistency on its side—two qualities which were given a rather hard time in the previous debate—it has common sense on its side as well.
Lord Faulks
Fifteen years is the line drawn by a previous Government, who thought that was a reasonable assessment of somebody who had a sufficient or recent connection with the country. Any line, whether it is 16 years or 14 years, is going to be arbitrary. Sympathetic though the Government are to the general tone of these amendments, for the reasons I have given I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I am very sorry that the Government have not followed the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, drawn a deep breath and thought again about this. I am afraid that there is no logic to the position laid out by the Minister. He admits that the line is arbitrary. He says that any change has to be considered and that more time should be taken over adopting it. In that case, the Government could have made the votes for life Bill a priority at the beginning of this Session. That is what they should have done if they believe in it. I am afraid that a lot of the EU expats listening to this debate will conclude that it is humbug as they will be disfranchised.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, put his finger on the matter when he said that it was about fairness. That is what it is. It is very unfair that the people we are discussing have been led to understand throughout their lives that being in the EU means being part of a network to which Britain belongs. Now, when Britain may make a choice to leave it, they have no say in that whatever. That position is unfair and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, said, it is an accident of timing. This is an unfairness that the Government could have rectified. I will certainly not withdraw the amendment. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
European Union Referendum Bill
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) any United Kingdom citizen who does not fall within paragraph (a), but is resident in the European Union and has registered to vote in the referendum,”
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests as declared in the register: when Parliament is not sitting, I live in France, where my husband and I have a vineyard and a wine business. We have many friends there who are UK citizens, a number of whom have lived there for more than 15 years.
I am very grateful to the other noble Lords who have put their names to my amendment. I am sure they will have many good examples to bring before the Committee. Last Tuesday, when we discussed elections, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, asked for examples of real people. I am very happy to provide them. Indeed, I gave a couple of examples at Second Reading. But, first, I want to talk about the principle. I make it absolutely clear that I am not arguing for votes for life in general or local elections. Those elections involve different arguments about whether someone has invested in another country emotionally and financially more than they may have done in the country of which they are a citizen. What is before us today is a totally separate and different matter of whether British citizens who have lived in the EU for more than 15 years should have an exceptional franchise in this EU referendum. I am sure that they should.
If we can make a rule that exceptionally, Peers can vote in this referendum, we can surely make the same exceptional provision for a group with at least as great an interest in the matter as anyone in your Lordships’ House—and a group, I submit, with a lot more at stake. These British expats in the EU will face a giant step into the unknown, should the vote lead to an exit from the EU. They will face a mass of questions. Will they need to apply to become a citizen of the country in which they live? Will that even be possible? Will they pass any financial or language requirements? What will happen to their healthcare arrangements? How quickly will reciprocal arrangements cease? These issues have all been raised with me by very worried people. Even driving a motor car is not a given. My American friends Hank and Cindy, who live in France, have had real difficulty passing the French driving theory test, which comprises some 3,000 questions, all in a foreign language. I am not sure that many British expats of 70 and over would be able to do that.
Then there are those with businesses. For them, the implications are immense. Brian Cave from south-west France, who has long campaigned on this issue, says: “There are another half million or thereabouts in business on their own account or employed who are likewise concerned. It hardly needs expressing but they are concerned about the possibility of work permits—free movement around the continent. Free movement of capital for their businesses and for their own future pensions”.
With all these massive questions hanging over their future, surely these expats are absolutely entitled to a vote on whether or not the UK should remain in the EU. The fact that they have lived abroad for more than 15 years does not diminish that right but increases it. Years ago, they took to heart in an especially personal way the idea of the EU as a place in which to live and work, and so they have much more at stake. Many moved to the EU for employment after university. Those people often now have children at a critical stage in their schooling, and they will face upheaval in their own careers. In November 2012, a Home Office study showed that the majority of British citizens who emigrated abroad between 1999 and 2010 did so to work. Therefore, they moved abroad for a good reason and do not deserve to be penalised for it.
At this point I will give one example. Jane Golding says, “I now work in Germany as a lawyer under my home title practising EU law. I can do this because EU rules on mutual recognition of professional qualifications allow me to practise under my own title throughout the EU”. She has had an international career spanning four different EU countries. She says: “If the UK leaves the EU I could face losing my livelihood, because those rules no longer apply to me. Changing my citizenship, which I do not want to do, would not help. The worst-case scenario would be that I would need to requality. In short, having relied on my freedom of movement to leave the UK to find work in my field I now find myself deprived of a say in my future ”.
Lord Faulks
The Government have their priorities and a considerable amount of legislation has been introduced, some of which has moved fairly slowly through your Lordships’ House. I cannot speak for the Government’s assessment of their priorities. This is an important matter and it will no doubt take its place in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, suggested that the Government’s enthusiasm for UK citizens having a vote outside the EU might be motivated by their apparent desire to vote Conservative. As I have said consistently from the Dispatch Box, we have no idea how people would vote, whether they live in the EU or outside it. The Government are simply not concerned with trying to second-guess anything. They are concerned only with legitimacy—here, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness—that people feel there has been no manipulation and no sense that there has been an attempt to skew the result, however illegitimate they might think it was. We suggest that the best criterion is to have the Westminster franchise. Of course, I am sympathetic to much that lies behind the amendment, having regard to the Government’s commitment in respect of votes for life.
I should finally point out that many British citizens living in the EU and elsewhere in the world will be able to vote in the referendum as long as they have not been living overseas for 15 years or more. The parliamentary franchise already allows them to vote. So while I am sympathetic to the amendment, I do not believe that this is the time or place to make those changes.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I warmly thank all those who have spoken in this interesting debate, which I think has fleshed out some of the major questions. I would like to make a couple of points. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, asked what the difference is between someone living in Oslo and someone living in Stockholm, and other noble Lords had that question in their minds. The difference is that the people living in EU countries, when they decided to work or to retire abroad, for example, did so on the basis of being EU citizens, not citizens of anywhere else. What we are possibly about to remove in the EU referendum, if it goes the other way, is that EU citizenship. That puts them into a totally different category.
Lord Grocott
But, my Lords, as soon as you start speculating about other people’s motives, you end up in pretty deep water. It might be that someone has gone to live and work in Oslo because Norway is not a member of the European Union. You simply cannot make those kinds of judgments about people’s motivations.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
I am clearly not going to agree with the noble Lord on that one. I think that there is a basic difference between us in our understanding of what being an EU citizen is. However, I was not as depressed by that argument as by the one put forward by several noble Lords—notably the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs—that it really all seems to be much too difficult. There are too many people and how would we reach them? That is not a reason for not giving people the vote.
Lord Dobbs
The noble Baroness really must not misunderstand me. I was not saying that it would be too difficult; I was simply saying that there are practical issues which need to be taken into account. They cannot be swept aside by somebody’s passion for a principle that they have suddenly grabbed on to in opposition, but seemed to be rather quiet about when they were in the coalition Government.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
I think what the noble Lord said when he referred to Hansard was that there were too many practical problems. That comes back to the Government’s attitude, too. I can see that we are not likely to agree at this stage, but I am very glad to have discovered the true objection to the reason for giving people a vote. Before Report, it would be very useful if noble Lords dissociated votes for life, which is a totally different issue, from the right to vote in the EU referendum. I respectfully say to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, that she talked a lot about what is effectively a votes-for-life issue. When we come back to the Bill on Report, we need to concentrate solely on the EU referendum and not get diverted by something the Government seem to offer as a sop, saying that there is going to be a Bill on votes for life, if there is time, in this Parliament. Most of the EU ex-pats I have come across are Conservative voters—so I am not batting for them because I think we will do well out of it in the long run—and they are appalled at being given such a short straw.
Finally, several noble Lords who oppose these amendments seem to draw comfort from the fact that lots of EU citizens have been in the EU for less than 15 years and therefore would have a right to vote. That is no reason to feel better, because noble Lords themselves have discovered the inequity in their argument. I will come back to this issue on Report, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union Referendum Bill
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
No, I do not. No one made that point in the run-up to the referendum. No one said that they would not accept the result, even if it was close, because European citizens living in Scotland were voting in it. That was not an issue. I went round a lot of Scotland during the referendum and no one ever raised that as an issue with me.
As a postscript, I find the suggestion just referred to that, because no other countries have done this, we should not, quite depressing. We have pioneered so many things in the United Kingdom. We have invented and started so much. Why can we not also be pioneers in this? I hope the Government will give it serious consideration.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I have a probing amendment in this group. Should the House decide at a later stage to enfranchise the group we have just been talking about, or the UK citizens we will be discussing in Amendment 14, the purpose of my amendment is to find out what work would need to be done by the Government and what preparations they would need to make in order to make that happen.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but there is one dimension that perhaps I can bring to the debate that few others could.
In Wales, perhaps in Scotland as well, apart from constitutional nationalism there is always a fringe of more extreme nationalism and there are fringes that impinge on racism. It is something that throughout my political career I have tried to stand against. I have made the point time after time, ad nauseam, that all people living in Wales, whatever their language, colour or creed, are full and equal citizens of Wales. It is a concept of civic involvement in the community in which they live. These amendments touch upon this. If we are going to go down the road of starting to differentiate on the basis of some concept of nationality as opposed to citizenship, we could be in very serious trouble indeed.
Lord Faulks
I think my noble friend is referring to the possibility of some form of threshold. That is not part of the Government’s intention by the Bill. The point he alludes to is important, which is the risk, at least, that if EU nationals are given the right to vote—however cogent the reasons may be because of their participation in our national life—and the vote results by a narrow majority in our staying in Europe, the result of the vote may not command the same confidence that I am sure that all in your Lordships’ House want the referendum to command. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
I deeply apologise if while the Chief Whip was talking to me I missed the Minister’s response, but I specifically tabled Amendment 18 on what work would be necessary and briefly spoke to it. Perhaps the Minister might be kind enough to address that; otherwise I will need to regroup my amendment with Amendment 14 next Monday.
Lord Faulks
I fear that in order to get a really adequate answer, the noble Baroness may have to regroup her amendment. I endeavoured to say that what might happen to EU nationals was a matter of hypothesis which I fear that the Government are not prepared to go into at this stage.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, during the passage of this Bill we have learnt that there is no need for this clause because squatting in people’s homes is already criminal. We have learnt that there was a big need for guidance and we would not be where we are today unless there had been an abject failure of successive Governments to issue any guidance on the use of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. If enforcement of those more reasonable measures in that Act had been properly understood, duplicating the legislation in this much harsher way would not have seemed necessary; nor is there a demand for it.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for our two meetings. She also wrote to me after the Report stage to say that the Government consultation was evidence of demand, so I looked again at the results of the consultation. In fact, out of the 2,217 people who responded, 96 per cent did not want to see any action taken to criminalise squatting, and even more surprisingly, only 10 people, 0.5 per cent of all the respondents, wrote in to say that they had been the victims of squatting. I do not feel that either need or demand has been demonstrated.
We have also learnt that this is going to cost a good deal. In a Bill that is all about cost cutting, even the Government’s own impact assessment suggests that the cost of this measure will be between £5 million and £10 million, which is a pretty wide estimate. However, those figures are probably optimistic. If the clause is enforced, it will cost the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office many tens of millions in enforcement, court time, rehabilitation, curfew monitoring and so on, and that is before we get to the costs of rehousing.
I am still against this clause in every way but, on the basis that the Government are determined to push it through, I must look at mitigating in any way I can the injustices being perpetrated against the homeless, and that is the purpose of the amendments I have tabled. My noble friend Lady Hamwee will go into greater detail on the definition of “residential”, which we feel is still inadequate. I will address my comments to the commencement of the clause. What will happen to those individuals who will be affected when the law is changed? I need to know about the practicalities of how individual homeless people who are currently squatting will get to know about the change in the law, or will they simply be criminalised overnight? Could there be a system of warning them and offering help to find alternatives? Are local authorities actually prepared to do that?
With nothing set out in the Bill, how will the Government ensure that appropriate help is offered? Evidence given to us by the charity Crisis, which has researched this issue, shows that when squatters who want to leave a squat present themselves to their local authority for help with housing, they are given a home-finder pack that at best contains a list of landlords, but since they have no money, the pack is of little help. They may be given a list of hostels, but some 2,000 hostel beds have been lost in the past year, so the hostels are likely to be full. Can my noble friend tell me what should happen then? There is nothing in the Bill to suggest even consultation with local authorities, let alone powers to make them act. Can squatters be deemed to be intentionally homeless, because then local authorities have no obligation at all to house them? They would automatically be denied help. Will the Government invite representatives of Crisis, a charity which does so much for the homeless, to work with officials on potential transitional measures? They might be able to offer some practical suggestions for measures that could be put in place to support homeless people who are squatting.
Finally, I should like to ask my noble friend about empty dwelling management orders. The number of empty homes is staggering, at over 720,000 across the UK. In London alone, there are some 74,500 empty homes. Some of them are owned by local authorities and housing associations, which is a bit of an irony since those bodies are meant to be in the business of housing people. However, by far the greatest number of empty homes are in private hands. If the Government think it is criminal to squat, they should also think it is criminal to leave properties empty, denying them to society year after year. What are the Government doing to ensure that the scandal of all those empty homes comes to an end?
I challenge the fact that this clause is still needed, but it is before us. These modest amendments try to make the position clearer and a little more just. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I preface my remarks with the comment, “Better late than never”. I add my tributes to those made earlier to Lord Newton of Braintree. Back in the 1980s when I worked with the Child Poverty Action Group, I knew him to be a fair and open-minded Minister. On the day of my introduction to this House, he welcomed me from the Benches opposite in a very warm and generous way. Like so many other Members of your Lordships’ House, I thought of him as my noble friend. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, once again, for her perseverance in ensuring that we debate this important issue at not exactly a reasonable hour but at least a slightly less unreasonable hour than the last time. I am pleased to add my name in support of the amendment. As I made clear on Report, Clause 145 is wrong in principle. It is unfair because it treats what is a homelessness and welfare issue as a criminal justice issue, and it is unnecessary because residential home owners are already protected in law.
Baroness Northover
Yes, I would say so. I do not think it is right that people should live unprotected. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, flags up monitors for heating systems and the dangers involved there. How can anybody be protected or have tenants’ rights if they are squatting? I think we owe it to our citizens to make sure that they are housed properly and that they do not live without that kind of protection, as is the case with squatting. Perhaps I may continue.
On preparing local authorities for commencement, we plan to do a range of things, including working with the National Homelessness Advice Service to provide training for local authorities, raising awareness through regional seminars and websites, and working with Citizens Advice to ensure that home owners and squatters are informed of the changes.
One or two noble Lords asked about the consultation. The vast majority of responses—1,990 out of 2,216—were received via the website of the campaign group Squatters’ Action for Secure Homes. That is fair enough. However, the remainder came from landlords’ associations, local government associations, law firms and so on. We also received responses from individual property owners who had first-hand experience of squatters in their buildings. I have just mentioned the letter that I received yesterday from the deputy leader of Redbridge Council which referred to a couple of cases and the impact on the areas involved.
I was asked by my noble Friend, Lady Hamwee, whether squatters who vacate their squats will be considered intentionally homeless. That is obviously a very important point. Section 191 of the Housing Act 1996 provides that a person becomes homeless intentionally if it is a consequence of something that he or she has deliberately done or failed to do. The accommodation that he or she has left must have been available for their occupation and reasonable for them to continue to occupy. Therefore, it is unlikely that a squat being occupied illegally could be considered as accommodation that is available to be occupied. I hope that my noble Friend is reassured on that point.
I was also asked about whether we could commit to working with Crisis, and we certainly will. We will involve Crisis when we are liaising with the local government department and local authorities on the implementation of the offence. It is very important that that is taken forward. I was asked about the empty dwelling management orders. In January 2011 the Government announced that we would be making changes to those orders. These proposals will limit the authorisation of interim EDMOs to those properties that have been wholly empty for at least two years. They will require local housing authorities to give property owners a minimum notice period of three months before applying to a residential property tribunal for an interim EDMO. They also require the local housing authority to provide all the information that it has on the empty property that is causing a nuisance to the community, and that the community supports the proposal for the local housing authority to take control.
I was asked by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about guidance for the police and the CPS. We will liaise with ACPO prior to commencement on the provision of appropriate guidance, including how the new offence will interact with existing offences in Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. There were various other points but I shall move on to Amendment 36 and the point about occupying buildings that have been left empty for a year or so.
As I explained, this amendment is problematic for a number of reasons. I explained this on Report and in my letter. There are many reasons why a residential building might be left empty for a year or more, and I have just referred to the letter from Redbridge. Clearly, if a property is inherited following a death or probate is taking a while to sort out, those kinds of issues may mean that a property is empty. Reference was made by my noble friends Lady Miller and Lady Hamwee to the definition of a building. I note that my noble friend has proposed a definition that would sit alongside the current definition in the Bill. We are concerned that that would introduce unnecessary confusion and complexity. We talked about this at our meeting this morning. I am happy to expand on that if required but it is five minutes to 11, so unless noble Lords want to come back to that, I urge them to accept the simplicity of what is there at the moment, which is the right way to go.
I commend my noble friend for her concern for a very vulnerable group of people. As I have just said, it is important to look at this with some clarity in terms of the social responsibility to individuals and how society should ensure that the vulnerable are cared for and housed properly, and that squatting is not the answer. I understand why my noble friend has tabled the amendments and her concerns about unintended consequences of legislation. I hope that she is reassured that we have looked very carefully at the issues that she has raised and that we have sought to address them, in terms of assisting vulnerable people. I therefore hope that she will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I am tremendously grateful to all Members of the House who spoke in this debate—which finally had the airing that it deserved, even though it was late—and to all Members of the House who stayed to hear it. It was an incredibly important debate about whether we should choose to criminalise a section of society. Many extremely good points were made and I will not rehearse them all at this hour. One theme that ran through all the speeches was that of unintended consequences.
I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is society’s responsibility to look after the vulnerable—and, I would add, the homeless. That responsibility does not include criminalising them; that is where we part company. However, I see that Amendment 36 is problematic, and I accept the criticisms around the definition of “residential”. We were trying to offer something that was slightly better than what was in the Bill.
Noble Lords concentrated on the issue of what people will do. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, the housing is not there and cannot be created in an instant. Therefore, there will be a group of people who will face very difficult decisions about whether to stay in a squat and be criminalised, to sleep rough or to present themselves to their local authority. We keep coming back to the issue of local authorities and consultation. I think that the Minister accepted that consultation with local authorities was the key. The House would feel very reassured if that were put in the Bill.
While accepting that my other amendments are faulty, I will seek in due course to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 41. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 36.
“(3A) Section 145 shall not come into force until the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State has consulted representatives of local authorities and such other persons as he considers appropriate.”
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I move this amendment because of the reasons expressed from all sides of the House, and because it is my hope that the House of Commons might debate this properly as it did not have a chance to do so in Committee.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I am sure that the House will find it convenient if we discuss all the amendments relating to Clause 136 in one group and, therefore, I intend to regroup them. I am sure that your Lordships will not need reminding that this matter was not discussed at all in Committee in the Commons and was discussed very late at night in your Lordships’ House, although it was not at a quarter to midnight.
Even given your Lordships’ stamina, I do not think that this is any way in which to deal with a major point of principle. It is no accident that squatting in an empty property has never before been criminalised in the UK. In its historic context, it has been seen as a humane response to the homeless seeking shelter. Any big change deserves more scrutiny than it has so far had in its entire passage through Parliament. Even though the hour is late, I hope that we will discuss the principle and, should Parliament decide on the principle that the Government are asking for, some of the practical measures that need to be further considered. That is what my amendments seek to address.
This is a cross-departmental matter. It will involve the Home Office because the police will have to spend a lot more time and resources. It will involve the Department for Communities and Local Government because local authorities will be involved in rehousing tens of thousands of people who will be made homeless. The MoJ will be involved because of all the people who will end up being criminalised. In addition, there is the entire housing issue, and I am sure that your Lordships will join me in wishing that this had come as part of a housing Bill.
We need to talk about a lot of issues, but I will turn directly to the practicality of my amendments. Amendment 157A was suggested by the charity for the homeless, Crisis. This is an issue about homelessness. If a building has been empty for more than 12 months, someone squatting in it should not be criminalised. I spoke to that issue at greater length in Committee, so I will leave it at that for now.
Amendments 157B and 157C deal with “residential”. The Bill defines “residential” very loosely. If a garage had a bed in it, even someone wandering into it and lying on that bed could criminalise themselves by that action. The drafting of the definition of residential is far too wide, and we should think about it.
Amendment 157D deals with the even more worrying issue of retrospectivity. No one knows exactly—I have asked Written Questions on this and the Government have admitted that they do not know—but there could be up to 50,000 or 60,000 people squatting at the moment. If they are all criminalised overnight, what will they do? Will they present themselves as homeless to local authorities? That is what retrospectivity means here. They will not have a choice: they will either have to stay where they are and risk becoming criminalised or they will have to present themselves as homeless, and that has tremendous implications.
I am grateful to the Minister and his colleague, Crispin Blunt, who talked through transition measures with me, but there is an awful lot more we need to discuss with regard to this. I cannot think of a single local authority which would be in a position at the moment to deal with anything like 200 homeless people presenting themselves on its doorstep, let alone thousands. This is a big issue which needs further discussion. As I have said, it obviously has cross-departmental implications.
In fact, it is practicality which worries me most. The Government could choose to bring this measure in over a considerably longer period because we cannot solve the problem extremely quickly. I am sure that in their hearts the Government do not want to criminalise a section of the population who, very often through no fault of their own, are homeless. The clause is about squatters, but if you described them as “vulnerable homeless”, most people’s reaction would be different. I know the debate in the press and in political circles has been coloured by perhaps a dozen cases that the press have quoted, but I remind your Lordships that they were of squatters who went into someone’s home and that people’s homes are already protected in legislation. There are thousands of people out there who are in empty properties because they are homeless and seeking shelter. The Government need to give further thought to how they are going to deal with so many people presenting themselves as homeless. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am pleased to have added my name in support of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I pay tribute to her for her tenacity in making sure that this damaging clause is not completely overlooked. Both in Committee and today she has made a powerful case. I am only sorry that I was not able to be present in Committee.
I ask noble Lords to stop and think who we identify with because that will colour our attitudes to the clause and the amendments. In the Guardian last week a Ministry of Justice spokesman was quoted as it being,
“determined to stamp out this distressing practice which causes property owners untold misery and costs them thousands of pounds in eviction, repair and clean-up costs”.
I ask the Minister for his evidence of this. My point is that most of us are probably property owners—that is, we own our own homes—and the thought someone of breaking in and squatting in our homes while we are not there is, indeed, painful. In contrast, it is highly unlikely that any noble Lords have, either from choice or necessity because of homelessness, squatted. It is therefore not surprising that I detect a degree of unease about opposing this clause. However, a Government committed to evidence-based policy-making should not rely on misleading stereotypes.
This clause is not there to protect the homes of people like us. As we have heard, the law already does that. There was a letter in the Guardian last year from more than 160 leading housing lawyers, both academics and practitioners, who made clear that this clause is completely unnecessary. I understand that a similar position is taken by the Magistrates’ Association and the Metropolitan Police. If there is a problem, it is a problem of enforcement: the existing law needs to be enforced better. It is interesting that earlier today, in response to Amendment 145A, the Minister said that we do not need new legislation; we just need to enforce the existing legislation better.
On the question of stereotypes, the great majority of squatters are not doing it by choice. Research for Crisis by Sheffield Hallam University concludes:
“The evidence consistently points to squatting as a manifestation of housing need, and of inadequate support and provision for single homeless people”.
The Sheffield Hallam University Crisis report goes on to say that squatting,
“is a homelessness and welfare issue, not a criminal justice issue”.
I do not know about other noble Lords, but I find it quite distressing that I am finding more and more rough sleepers on the streets of London. It is reminding me of the 1980s. This is a welfare and homelessness issue that is growing.
In Committee, the Minister said that the Government wanted to send a clear message to existing and would-be squatters. To my mind, there is too much legislation about sending messages, especially when it is a message which involves criminalising a vulnerable group of people. I fear, however, that this is not about sending a message to squatters; this is about sending a message to the right-wing press, which has conducted a misleading and pernicious campaign on this matter, demonising homeless people in the process.
I would like us to send a message tonight—a message that we are willing to put ourselves in the shoes of homeless people for whom squatting and empty property offer a meagre lifeline and that we oppose this nasty little clause. Therefore, despite the lateness of the hour, if the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, chooses to test the opinion of the House on one of her amendments, I very much hope that noble Lords would be willing to support it.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have not only stayed but spoken so passionately that it makes up in quality for what we did not have in numbers. Several other noble Lords who were not able to stay have expressed their sadness about that. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, spoke extremely powerfully. In one way I am glad she was not able to speak in Committee because it gave us the chance to hear some of the arguments lying at the very basis of this issue. It is important to remember, as she outlined, that this is about homeless people. I was disappointed by the Minister’s reply when she kept emphasising the occupation of someone else’s residence or home. These are not residences or homes, by and large; they are simply empty properties. This is the basis of the misunderstanding and it is what I have tried to get to the bottom of.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for his support and to my noble friend Lady Hamwee who, as always, asked some very incisive questions, some of which I do not feel were fully answered tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, is quite right when he says that I took his advice on extending the six months suggested by Crisis to 12 months, because that puts it beyond doubt that the property is empty. In fact, there are definitions, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, of an empty property, and my amendment is more modest than those.
I have not heard anything new from the Minister tonight about the transition measures. She mentioned that local authorities would be approached by those being criminalised, but I wonder whether she is aware—
Baroness Northover
I had a long list of other measures that have been taken, but I thought that the best thing might be to write to the noble Baroness with that rather than detain people too long tonight.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
I am grateful to the Minister for that suggestion. Is she saying that the issue is still live and can therefore come back on Third Reading?
Baroness Northover
As I said to the noble Baroness, I am very happy to arrange a meeting to take this forward. Then we will have to see where we are at that point.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
Can she give me an assurance that it will be possible to come back on this at Third Reading on the basis of that? Can the Minister clarify what she is saying? She says that she has a list of other measures, but we will not know what they are this evening because she is not reading them out. We will need to know what they are before we decide what to do. She will need to go through the list.
Baroness Northover
My understanding is that having left it open it is still open.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the fact that it is still open. Therefore, it is free for me to bring the matter back before your Lordships at Third Reading.
Lord Bach
I do not think that that is quite what the Minister said. She said that it was open—I do not think that she said that it would be open for the noble Baroness to bring it back at Third Reading. Perhaps the noble Baroness should ask her again and see what her answer is.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
I would be pleased to ask her again, because it is very important before I make a decision on what to do with this amendment.
Baroness Northover
My noble friend says that we have discussed the possibility of meeting and considering this further. I gave her the assurance that this was still open because that was what I was informed, and I reiterate that assurance.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
I am grateful to my noble friend. I suspect that that is as far as we can go this evening. I have to say on the record that if I find that the agreement does not hold, I shall have to consider my position very carefully.
I still want to put on record the point that I was about to make because it is very pertinent. The Government should not be under any illusion that local authorities will be in a position to help those who present themselves to them as homeless. I quote from the Crisis report:
“Most are also recognised as homeless by the LA (78 per cent) but few are entitled to accommodation under the terms of the homelessness legislation, typically because they are not considered ‘priority need’, or are deemed ‘intentionally homeless’”.
That leaves thousands of young and middle-aged people in this country potentially being criminalised. We have not heard what measures the Government will put in place tonight to mitigate that. I am in some doubt as to whether we will be able to return to this issue, but I am sure that when the House reads this debate it will be the will of the House that we return to it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Judd
My Lords, I strongly support and endorse this amendment. We have been reminded that a number of very significant organisations in this country which are working in the front line in the countries concerned feel passionately that this amendment is necessary. I declare an interest as a former director of Oxfam. All my experience during those years at Oxfam and since in my work with similar organisations has underlined the importance of this amendment. Not infrequently I found myself in a situation in which we were being asked to respond to need. In effect, by responding to need we were masking injustice because we were dealing with the consequences of what had happened instead of getting to the roots of what had happened. This seemed in a sense dishonest in that if we were serious about the issues that confronted us, we had to get to the underlying cause that had brought about the lamentable situation.
From that standpoint I reached a very firm conviction during my time at Oxfam and since that very frequently people in the Third World are not primarily asking for handouts or support, they are asking for justice. If they have not got justice, how on earth can they get themselves together to start self-generating progress and the rest because they are burdened by the consequences of what has happened to them as a result of abuse of one kind or another? That is fundamentally wrong. Of course, if people are desperate to start taking their situation forward themselves, we should ensure that that is possible and that they are not artificially and unnecessarily hindered.
I really do not know how a Government who set so much store by their commitment to the overseas aid programme—which is a great credit to them—in saying that it must be ring-fenced in the current economic situation do not see that the logic of that position demands that an amendment of this kind should be accepted. Failing to accept this amendment would be working against the very commitment of the Government. From that standpoint, I applaud the amendment and hope that the Government will feel able to take it seriously, even at this late stage.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 134 in the belief that the Government are quite right, in general, on the principles in this part of the Bill but they are wrong not to have made an exception in this case. These are very modest amendments to allow exceptions to be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned one reason why exceptions need to be made: DfID. This Government are working hard to follow the amount of aid that this country has committed—and I pay tribute to the Opposition. But it is not only DfID. The FCO realises that soft power is very important, and the Department for Business also realises that companies need to be socially responsible. Corporate responsibility has become a very important standard for this country.
This is recognised across almost all of government, and I urge my noble friend and the Ministry of Justice to join the other departments in making sure that companies listed here that have the potential to cause enormous damage—the extractive industries, in particular, whose work is accelerating at an enormous rate, and also agribusiness as commodity prices go up; there are a number of businesses whose turnover and impact in the world is growing day by day at a rate that was quite unimaginable even a decade ago—that needs to be balanced by better access to justice, not worse. It is for that reason that I support these amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I too support this amendment, which I think is really important. It is about the impact this Bill will have on access to judicial remedies for victims in host countries who are harmed by the activities of multinationals. Under the existing regime, it is already difficult for these kinds of cases to be brought in the UK. This Bill will change that system to make it virtually impossible for such cases to be brought in the future.
The cases in question are typically brought by poor victims who have had their livelihoods destroyed, their homes despoiled or their health gravely damaged by the UK or a UK-based company. As it stands, the Bill makes it economically unviable for both claimants and law firms to bring such cases due to the high financial risks. Provisions on success fees and insurance premiums mean that even if they were successful, claimants would have to pay such fees and costs out of their own damages.
This fundamental change is inappropriate, surely, because damages awarded would be typically too low to cover the costs involved. Damages in these particular cases are assessed according to developing country standards, whereas legal costs are incurred in the UK. As a result, as others have said, the Bill will create a practical barrier to justice and it is very unlikely that such cases will continue to be brought.
There would be no additional cost to the taxpayer if this amendment were accepted, but the benefits would be hugely significant in enabling poor communities to claim damages where they have been harmed and, just as importantly, in showing companies that they cannot act with impunity. I hope that the Government will reconsider this aspect of the Bill and move towards accepting this amendment.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) The offence is not committed where the building has been empty for 6 months or more and where there are no significant steps being taken to refurbish, let or sell the building at the time of the trespass.”
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I realise the hour, but I will need to detain the Committee for some time on this clause because it is very serious and seeks to criminalise a large group of people. It was not debated in Committee in the other place, so I feel that this House needs to give it its full scrutiny. I am very pleased that so many of your Lordships are still in their places at this time of night to debate this issue. I have tabled this amendment and given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that this clause stand part of the Bill because I think the Committee will need to question very deeply the Government’s claim that they need to criminalise the vulnerable homeless who are seeking shelter.
Let me say at the outset that I—like all noble Lords, I am sure—feel that a home should be sacrosanct and that any violation of it is totally unacceptable. An Englishman’s or Englishwoman’s home may not be a castle, but it should be so in law, and so it is. Despite the many misconceptions peddled by the press and others, it is already a criminal offence to squat in someone’s home. The instances of squatters trying to establish themselves in someone’s home are minuscule, but when it happens homeowners can be quite clear that they can ask the person or people to leave, and should that not happen immediately they should call the police. The police should remove the squatters and deal with the matter as a criminal offence. The same applies to a home that has been bought into which someone is intending to move. In both cases, the property owner is protected by Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which was updated by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It is already a criminal offence to refuse when asked to leave someone’s home or a house that they are about to move into, to cause criminal damage either to gain entry or once inside the property, and to use utilities without paying for them. The police have a clear duty to enforce that. That is just to be absolutely clear. When the Minister began to speak to this amendment, he implied that the law was not sufficient in this case, and my first question to him is: why do the Government think that?
My amendment is suggested by the charity Crisis. Its purpose is to probe whether it might be better to extend what is covered by Section 7. The amendment proposes that anyone squatting in a house that has been empty for more than six months—not anyone’s home, but a house that has been empty—and where there have been no material steps to bring it back into use would not be committing a criminal offence. What we need more clarity about are empty houses—not homes, but empty houses; for example, because they are going to be redeveloped or because someone has bought them and is waiting for the property market to pick up. It would be better to debate the link between homelessness and empty houses in the context of a housing Bill. I am sure the Minister has read the Crisis report of September 2011, Squatting: A Homelessness Issue, which urges that squatting should be discussed in the context of housing, homelessness and welfare.
Crisis commissioned independent research that shows that 41 per cent of homeless squatters report mental health needs; 34 per cent have been in care; 42 per cent suffer physical ill health or a disability; 47 per cent have experienced drug dependency; 21 per cent self-harm; and 15 per cent have a learning disability. On all these measures, homeless squatters are more vulnerable than the single homeless population as a whole, and 90 per cent of homeless squatters have also slept rough.
These are the people whom the Government are seeking to criminalise. I submit that criminalisation will not solve the problems faced by either these homeless individuals or by our society as a whole, which has a housing crisis, with over 600,000 people homeless and 350,000 empty properties—which is, as George Clarke graphically described in his Channel 4 series “The Great British Property Scandal”, equivalent to a city the size of Leeds.
To have a rational debate about squatting and empty properties, we need to debunk some of the myths. The Crisis report makes plain that there are a lot of myths around squatting; for example, that of the eastern European squatting gangs invading people’s homes, which, according to the Met policeman responsible for squatting policy, does not happen. What we are dealing with are people who, for whatever reason, have lost their home and are on a route back to housing.
Of course there are a few who choose to squat as a political statement, the so-called lifestyle squatters. As the historian Colin Ward says in his history of the subject:
“There has always been a distinction between squatting as a political demonstration and squatting as a personal solution to a housing problem. In the first instance the intention is for propagandist purposes, to be noticed. In the second the hope is to be inconspicuous and blend into the landscape”.
The Occupy squats are there to be seen and heard. Other squatters are trying in nearly all cases to be quiet neighbours and keep themselves to themselves.
There are a number of reasons why I am challenging Clause 130. First, it is no way to deal with the vulnerable homeless. Secondly, alone in this Bill, which is all about cutting costs, it will pass substantial additional costs on to the Ministry of Justice and eventually the taxpayer. I know how anxious my noble friend is for the Government to reduce costs and for his department to reduce its budget. Thirdly, the Law Society, the Criminal Bar Association, the Metropolitan Police Service and Crisis all believe that it would be much more sensible for the Government to focus on ensuring that the current law, which is quite adequate, is enforced, rather than to create a new criminal offence.
Interestingly, that position has also been taken by Annington Holdings plc, one of the largest owners of private property in the UK, which describes enforcement as the crux of the problem. It is in empty premises unoccupied for months or years, intended at some time for redevelopment, where people are likely to squat. For the owners of those properties, the housing associations and so on, the recourse is of course civil remedy. I accept that large-scale landlords who have several, perhaps dozens, of empty homes that they intend to redevelop find it very annoying to have to have recourse to civil remedy if they find that one or more of their properties has been squatted.
As a former leader of the local authority in Somerset, I have seen this issue from the other side and I have some sympathy. Housing associations have been affected, as have many private sector developers, but the fact is that civil remedy is not difficult. It is tried, tested and backed up by a very experienced bailiff system, which is what the civil law is there for. One of the peculiarities of the proposed legislation is that it is likely to lengthen the time that it takes to evict squatters. Prosecuted under civil law, squatters can be removed with an interim possession order in just a couple of days but going through the CPS could take weeks or even months.
In March 2011, the Government made a very good move when they made the position clearer in a joint initiative between the MoJ and the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps. They issued updated guidance called Advice on Dealing with Squatters in your Home, which makes it clear that it is an offence for a squatter to fail to leave a residential property when asked to do so. I would ask the Minister what advice to the Government changed after March 2011. It was not the advice from the police who, in their formal response to the MoJ consultation, said:
“Criminalisation of squatting and subsequent enforcement would have an impact on policing, in terms of community relations, local policing objectives and cost”.
They are not in favour of the change before us tonight. It was not on the advice of the enforcement agencies.
I do not know whether the Minister has had time to read the opinion of Claire Sandbrook, who is one of 60 authorised High Court enforcement officers and chair of Shergroup, which is a leading legal services company. She said:
“The options put forward in the paper also have one massive omission—the option of enhancing the civil enforcement route for dealing with squatters. Certainly, to my knowledge, there have been no complaints as to how effectively HCEOs deal with squatters once the cases are put in their hands. HCEOs deal with squatter evictions quickly, efficiently, safely and without cost to the public purse once they are in a position to take control of the situation … The trick would surely be to ensure that cases can be processed and actioned far more speedily through existing civil procedures”.
The fact is that the police are neither resourced nor trained to take on the duties that the bailiffs are undertaking. They could do so only at considerable cost and with other vital law and order priorities being downgraded as a result.
What will happen if we leave Clause 130 as it is? I ask your Lordships to consider whether it would mean more empty homes are brought back into use quickly by housing associations and local authorities. No, it will not because the reason that those homes are not being renovated and brought back into use is almost always financial. Will it make it easier for private landlords to gain possession of empty properties? It will not make it any easier or simpler; it will just shift the financial burden from the civil procedure effectively to the taxpayer because the time spent on it will be time spent by the police instead of the bailiffs.
The Government’s regulatory impact assessment envisages spending something between £3 million and £10 million more per year to enforce this. That is a very conservative estimate. I have seen others which estimate the sum to be nearer £20 million a year. The impact assessment does not cover the added costs to local authorities that presentation of numbers of vulnerable homeless will present—somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000—nor of children who will need special care arrangements. I think that taxpayers will ask who has benefited from this change. It will not be home owners, who are already protected.
I must say that the Government have made an excellent start on tackling the empty homes problem. Only in December last year, for the first time a £20 million fund was announced to provide support for single homeless people. The Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, then announced a review of barriers to investment in rented homes, and the Government introduced their empty homes strategy, when my honourable friend the Minister Andrew Stunell said:
“The number of empty homes in this country is a national scandal … yet for every two families that need a home there is one standing empty. That is why I’ve made tackling the blight of empty homes a top priority for the Coalition … we've made £150 million available to help councils and charities take radical action”.
All the building blocks are in place to solve the empty homes issue and make squatting a thing of the past. That is the route I believe we should be taking. I do not think we should criminalise the vulnerable homeless and we should not be creating a worse housing crisis.
I admit that we have to solve a knotty and difficult problem, but the period between now and Report is when your Lordships need to look in depth at these issues and not at Clause 130 as it is before us tonight. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I warmly thank those who have spoken in this debate tonight. I thought that the quote from the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, was incredibly apposite and absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that there are some very complex issues around houses that stand empty. However, I come back to the initial issue—someone’s home, or the home they intend to live in, is protected, as it is a criminal offence for a squatter to be in it. I still feel that the Minister’s reply did not sufficiently recognise that issue, but we will not get to the root of that this evening. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, gave us a real-life example, which pointed up exactly what we should be concerned about here.
Some of the things that I hope I will be able to discuss with the Minister and his department—which I know my noble friend is also concerned about—include the practicalities if the Government bring this in, such as the costs. Given the estimate of between 20,000 and 50,000 people squatting, what are the practicalities for local authorities being able to suddenly rehouse those sorts of numbers? The Minister said that this was about sending a clear message. I would just like to leave the Committee this evening with this thought; there are many ways of sending a message, and government guidance is a very good start. That is where the Government were in 2011, as I mentioned, and is something to build on. There is a lot to discuss between now and Report and I shall certainly bring this issue back. I welcome the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that we might discuss the wording of a more appealing amendment. I am sure we will debate this again, hopefully at a better hour of the day. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in this matter. I have only two points of divergence from what she has said, and they will be of a rather different character. I emphasise the noble Baroness’s praise for the efforts of Ministers to take up and address the fears that a number of us have expressed.
My first point of divergence from the noble Baroness is simply that she cannot praise herself, but I hope I may do so for her. She, and to some extent I, were participants in some of those earlier explanatory meetings after the initial flurry on this matter, when I found myself unable to support the Government, which is not my usual stance, because of the concerns that have been expressed. I know that Ministers have gone to an exceptional level of trouble, culminating in decisions this week to give us, in effect, the substance of what we want. It is perhaps difficult to score but as a percentage of the overall objective it is in the high 90s. I shall come back to that in a moment. It is an object lesson in how to do it.
To unpack the concerns that I and others expressed at the time, the coronial system, which had grown up locally and was delivered differently in different areas, had been perceptibly unresponsive to the needs of its users and often quite harsh to people who felt themselves vulnerable. In particular, it was uneven in its delivery. Something had to be done and I think the Government have now done it. I very much hope that the chief coroner, who has now been reinstated as the lead and the champion in this matter, will be able to take the agenda forward.
My other point of divergence from the noble Baroness is over the appeal system. It is of course right that we should raise that. It would be helpful if the Minister, in his response, said a little more about the managerial functions, which report to him in the Ministry of Justice; the judicial functions, which report to the chief coroner; and the overarching function of seeing that the system works satisfactorily and in accordance with the charter for bereaved people and is meeting their needs. He needs to set that out for us again, despite the helpful letter that he has circulated.
The area where I am mildly in dissent with the noble Baroness is that of appeals. Frankly, this is partly because when one has extracted nearly all the juice from the orange, it may or may not be prudent to put it to the final point. However, there is also a point of substance here, which I hope noble Lords will consider. One of the concerns that Ministers had was that in having a chief coroner they would be seen to be mixing up the administrative side with the judicial side. Although an inquest is a judicial process, it is not the normal kind of judicial process. I speak as a non-lawyer. It is not adversarial; there are no parties to it, although there are interested parties, including the bereaved families; and there is no judgment in favour of one side or the other. There are findings of fact, which may be right or wrong. Therefore, it is not necessarily self-evident that we need to cap this process of finding facts with a second tier of appeals, even if there are—as I am sure there are—some bereaved families whose concern, or duty to their loved ones as they see it, would lead them into further rounds of appeals until the process was exhausted.
I am not particularly keen on an appeal process, but one of the reasons why people wanted it was because the coronial system, as it had been delivered, probably deserved one because many inquests were flawed or not well conducted. There may be an argument that in those prelapsarian days, when we had no training and there was no overall supervision—which the chief coroner will now give—there was an uneven, patchy and unfair service. I hope that will be remedied without going through the second stage of an appeal process. If that was the major element of cost, and if it was a concern—as I am sure it was to Ministers—and it can be eliminated, whatever the exact figure, I think that would be sensible.
However, we have essentially secured the main prize: the survival of the position of the chief coroner. I remember the saying of the Roman poet: “You may kick out nature with a pitchfork, but somehow she will always come back”. This miraculously seems to have happened at the last moment with the chief coroner. I welcome that. The families of the bereaved will welcome it too, and we should not look the gift horse of government Ministers in the mouth. We should welcome what they are offering and accept it.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for enabling Parliament to get back to the place where it should have been, and was, after the Coroners Act. She has done a tremendous job. It has also brought forth something that she mentioned briefly in her speech—she is now involved in the training of coroners. Already there is tremendous progress. I am also hugely grateful for all the work that my noble friend Lord McNally has put into this matter, because I am sure it is not easy to turn the ship of government around when it is sailing so fast in one direction. I can imagine the sort of effort that he had to put in.
The Royal British Legion and Inquest deserve particular gratitude, as do all the other organisations that signed the letter to the Times. A lot of them are run and supported by bereaved families, and it is not easy to go out and campaign when in the midst of grief. Some of those parents and siblings came to give evidence to parliamentarians about what had happened to them at inquests. I should like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to those people for giving us examples of why not only the training but the attitude of coroners to issues such as timeliness are extremely important.
I have one question for the Minister. The charter on the table is not now just for bereaved people but for anyone who comes before the coronial system. Some of us, including me, certainly felt that it should be a charter for bereaved people. It is not yet finalised and I hope that the chief coroner, who will be in a wonderful position to cast his or her eye over the draft charter, will have an opportunity to comment on it and perhaps improve it in the light of the things that he or she hears when talking to coroners.
Finally, I wish to comment from a purely personal point of view on the issue of appeals. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, made some very good points about the fact that the issue could lie on the table and be implemented later, if necessary, but my heart lies with the government position, and it is not really a question of cost. In many cases, there will never be real satisfaction for the bereaved because, even though the process may have been thorough, timely and open, that is just the nature of bereavement; there is no satisfaction. If the chief coroner manages with all his other coroners to get the process right, there should be no need for appeals. There will obviously be an interim period that will not be entirely satisfactory, but the package on the table is all that we could have hoped for and is one for which I am particularly grateful.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I am going quietly on Amendment 54, but not on Amendment 53. I will go more loudly, but briefly, on this. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on her success. I thank the Government for giving her that success, even though she is showing some signs of looking the gift horse in the mouth. I have one very small point that is not about appeals, but about suicides. I declare an interest as the chair of a mental health trust.
One of the problems with the coronial system has been the great inconsistency between the verdicts of coroners, some of whom, it is alleged—I am not an expert on this but I have been to a number of meetings with people who have studied it very carefully—prefer to find suicides as accidental deaths to spare the families. I cannot vouch for that, but that is what is reported by reputable researchers. The Department of Health is devising a suicide prevention strategy. I do not see how such a strategy can be devised, let alone measured, unless there is consistency in coronial verdicts around the country. One thing that is required from a chief coroner’s office is the need to ensure consistency. I should be grateful for an assurance that part of the role envisaged will be to seek to bring about greater consistency in the practice of coronial courts around the country. I believe that I see the noble Baroness nodding her head at that proposition.
Coroner Service
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what responses they have received on the draft charter for the coroner service from organisations that represent the bereaved, and whether they anticipate making any substantial changes before they publish the charter.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government received 135 consultation responses, of which 16 were from organisations representing the bereaved. We are concurrently considering these responses, and we intend to publish our response to the consultation in December.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, the Minister will remember that the idea of the charter was that it would create a standard of service for bereaved people. He will be aware that the Government now propose a general charter for anyone coming into contact with the coroner service. What does he say to the likes of the father of Adrian Pullman, now himself dying of cancer, who has waited eight years for an inquest into why his five year-old only son was found dead in a swimming pool on a local authority care break? Does the Minister recall that in 2009, when we debated the Coroners and Justice Act, the coroner’s office involved said, “We have a lot of cases but this will be given a bit of priority because of the delay, but I cannot foresee it being heard before the end of the year”? It has still not been heard. Can the Minister say what in the Government’s revised proposals would mean that a bereaved father no longer had to wait eight years for an inquest?
Lord McNally
My Lords, let us be clear that in a system such as this delays are sometimes unavoidable; for example, because of ongoing criminal or other investigations or, in some cases, because of the family’s wishes. We want to ensure as efficient a system as possible. As part of that, we believe that the measures in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which we are implementing will help to reduce delays. We will also publish a wider range of statistics about the coroner system than we presently collect, drawing on our experience of service personnel inquests, where the quarterly publication of statistics has helped to eliminate delays throughout England and Wales.