Vagrancy Act 1824

Lord Best Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Of course, commencement is not really within the spirit of the Question, but I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from. There was no suggestion that commencement would be delayed indefinitely under the circumstances to which she refers.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, the various charities which campaigned for this change, led by Crisis, were deeply grateful for the amendment your Lordships passed which led to this legislative change. But a year on from the Government agreeing to legislate accordingly, we do not have that commencement. We do have the Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan, which seems to be mostly about a rather penal attitude towards people begging. It does contain some positive comments about new powers—I am not sure whether there will be new money too—to help people who are currently homeless and in need of extra support. Can we hear a little more about the positive aspects of what the Government are attempting to do? In the meantime, can we abolish this piece of legislation before its 200th anniversary?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am happy to give a bit more detail on the positive aspects of this. So far, we have invested up to £500 million through our flagship rough sleeping initiative 2022-25 so that local authorities can provide tailored support to end rough sleeping. We have launched the £200 million single homelessness accommodation programme, which will deliver up to 2,400 homes for vulnerable people sleeping rough or at risk of rough sleeping. In addition to the 6,000 homes being delivered by rough sleeping accommodation programmes, we have committed £42 million of funding since 2018 towards the subregional Housing First pilots in various regions. We have also committed up to £186.5 million in funding for substance misuse treatment services.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard - Part 2
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 89 and 146 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 146A and 146B in lieu.

146A: Page 56, line 32, at end insert the following new Clause—


“Repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824 etc


(1) The Vagrancy Act 1824 is repealed.


(2) Subsections (3) to (7) contain amendments and repeals in consequence of subsection (1).


(3) The following are repealed— (a) the Vagrancy Act 1935;


(b) section 2(3)(c) of the House to House Collections Act 1939 (licences);


(c) section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (power of magistrates’ court to commit on bail for sentence);


(d) in the Criminal Justice Act 1982—


(i) section 70 and the italic heading immediately before that section (vagrancy offences), and


(ii) paragraph 1 of Schedule 14 and the italic heading immediately before that paragraph (minor and consequential amendments);


(e) section 43(5) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (power of magistrates’ courts to commit for restriction order);


(f) section 26(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (alteration of certain penalties);


(g) in the Criminal Justice Act 2003—


(i) paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 25 and the italic heading immediately before those paragraphs (summary offences no longer punishable with imprisonment), and


(ii) paragraphs 145 and 146 of Schedule 32 and the italic heading immediately before those paragraphs (amendments relating to sentencing);


(h) paragraph 18 of Schedule 8 to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (powers of accredited persons).


(4) In section 81 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 (extending definition of public place and street for certain purposes), omit the words from “shall”, in the first place it occurs, to “public place, and”.


(5) In section 48(2) of the Forestry Act 1967 (powers of entry and enforcement), omit “or against the Vagrancy Act 1824”.


(6) In the Police Reform Act 2002—


(a) in Schedule 3C (powers of community support officers and community support volunteers)—


(i) omit paragraph 3(3)(b), (ii) omit paragraph 7(3), (iii) in paragraph 7(4), omit “or (3)”, and (iv) in paragraph 7(7)(a), omit “or (3)”, and


(b) in Schedule 5 (powers exercisable by accredited persons), omit paragraph 2(3)(aa).


(7) In the Sentencing Code—


(a) in section 20(1) (committal in certain cases where offender committed in respect of another offence)—(i) at the end of paragraph (e), insert “or”, and


(ii) omit paragraph (g) (and the “or” immediately before it), and


(b) omit section 24(1)(f) (further powers to commit offender to the Crown Court to be dealt with).


(8) The amendments and repeals made by this section do not apply in relation to an offence committed before this section comes into force.”


146B: Page 194, line 22, after “61” insert “, (Repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824 etc)”

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I hope the House will indulge me if I say a few concluding words about Motion J on the repeal of the Vagrancy Act, with my sincere apologies that I failed to speak during the earlier debate. I welcome the Commons Amendments 146A and 146B in lieu of Lords Amendments 89 and 146, which were passed by your Lordships on 17 January. The Commons version covers the same ground as our amendments and will finally repeal the notorious Vagrancy Act 1824. This means that being homeless and sleeping rough will no longer make you a criminal.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Lords Chamber

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 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.

[Lord Best (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, Lord Young of Cookham, the erstwhile distinguished Housing Minister responsible for the important rough sleepers initiative in earlier times; the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, 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, Eddie Hughes. 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (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, Lord Best, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, 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, Lord Best, 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.

[Lord Best (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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Best]

165: Clause 178, page 198, line 3, after “33” insert “, (Repeal of Vagrancy Act 1824)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the Amendment tabled in Lord Best's name to After Clause 62.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 320 and the consequential Amendment 328 are—slightly surprisingly—in this group. Together, they would finally repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, which makes homelessness a criminal offence.

I am grateful to the homelessness charity Crisis for devising these well-crafted amendments. I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for adding their names to these amendments. They join the long list of distinguished parliamentarians, including William Wilberforce in the 1820s and Winston Churchill in the 1930s, who have opposed this objectionable legislation. Indeed, last month the Prime Minister himself spoke out, saying:

“No one should be criminalised simply for having nowhere to live, and I think the time has come to reconsider the Vagrancy Act”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 752.]


Since there can be no objection from the Treasury, as there is no expenditure involved, it seems, therefore, that the moment has arrived. After almost 200 years, the antiquated and misguided Vagrancy Act can at last be laid to rest.

Certainly, the importance of repealing the Act remains, although I will not repeat my Second Reading speech on this theme. Suffice to say, punishing people for being homeless is entirely the wrong approach. Fining people up to £1,000 for sleeping rough or begging and giving them a criminal record is surely a travesty, making their recovery and reintegration into society more difficult than ever. It inhibits the referral of those sleeping rough to the community and social services that can help them, and as long as being homeless is itself a criminal offence, homeless people are deterred from engaging with the law when they are the victims of dreadful violence and abuse, as they so often are.

I note that rough sleepers are 17 times more likely to be victims of crime than the rest of us. Among the examples provided by Crisis, I note the quote from a man in Oxford, who said that

“in my nine years on and off the street, I was violently attacked, shouted at and even urinated on by total strangers. Enduring this abuse was hard enough—I didn’t expect the law to hold my very existence against me.”

Other case studies from Crisis demonstrate just how counterproductive the Act is in blocking the chance for agencies to help and instead penalising and fining those least able to pay.

However, it is now clear that, to the highest levels of government, Ministers have accepted the case for repeal. Nevertheless, in case there are any lingering doubts or hesitations, perhaps I could offer some observations on possible objections to these amendments.

First, securing this repeal has been inhibited to date by the problem of finding the parliamentary time for the Government to do what they want to. Clearly, this obstacle is behind us now that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill provides the opportunity for this to be expedited right away. Indeed, it would absorb far more parliamentary time if the Government were to prepare a fresh Bill to be taken through its 10 stages in the two Houses. It would also take more time if the Government turned down the opportunity before us and required these amendments to go to a vote, with all the extra toing and froing that this would entail. Missing this moment now would surely mean a long, frustrating and pointless wait for the next legislative opportunity, which might be years away.

Secondly, there is the objection that the amendments themselves need revising. The Minister raised such an objection at Second Reading: she noted the devolution implication, given that it extends to Wales. This is an important point and has now been the subject of discussion with the key people in Wales. Welsh Government Ministers have themselves advocated a repeal, and the Ministry of Justice has now been notified that the Welsh Government have indicated their full support for the amendments to apply to Wales as well as England. The necessary legislative consent Motion from the Senedd is scheduled once further amendments are made to the Bill. A tweak to the amendments before us has been prepared to embrace this Welsh dimension, and this can be brought forward, I hope with government approval, on Report. The devolution issue here is one of extra support from Wales. I add that the Vagrancy Act has already been successfully repealed in Scotland.

Thirdly, it might be argued that there are still parts of the original legislation covering aggressive begging and anti-social behaviour which need to be preserved, complicating any repeal of the Act. However, this line of argument ignores the far more extensive powers now available under other legislation, notably the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, will draw attention.

There are compelling arguments for the police to use these powers very sparingly in so far as they embrace homeless people, but it cannot be said that the necessary powers do not exist. To support necessary action by front-line police, Amendment 320 includes the totally non-contentious but none the less valuable subsidiary provision for updated guidance on the 2014 Act to be disseminated, promoting the preventive approach now adopted by most police forces.

Fourthly, it is said that it is not worth bothering with repeal of the Vagrancy Act since the number of people charged under it has been declining. However, the Act is still used as a fallback, even though other, more appropriate measures are available. Under pressure from local members of the public, the Act is still deployed.

Moreover, the symbolism in this repeal should not be underestimated; it demonstrates a more enlightened understanding of homelessness. The Government could be rightly proud of making this symbolic gesture alongside their good work in responding to homelessness in the pandemic with their Everyone In initiative; their support for the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, Bob Blackman MP’s Private Member’s Bill, which I had the honour of taking through your Lordships’ House; and their excellent funding for the Housing First projects.

The Government have the laudable objective of ending homelessness by 2024. Removing the barrier of the Vagrancy Act that still hangs over homelessness policy must be an essential step in this direction. I hope the Minister will agree that there really are no arguments for further delay. It has been over three years since the Government committed to look again at this issue and no difficulties have been uncovered. It is almost 200 years since this controversial measure was enacted; let us not kick the can any further down the road. At last, here and now, we have the opportunity to get this done.

I would be delighted to meet Ministers to discuss any further tweaks that could improve these amendments before Report, an offer I am sure goes for the other noble Lords supporting these amendments. Because of the way amendments have been grouped today, I will not be invited to sum up the position after the Minister’s response, so perhaps I can be clear now that I intend to take these amendments to a vote on Report if we are unable to agree a form of words to repeal the 1824 Act. However, I hope it will not come to this and I eagerly anticipate the Minister’s response.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, first, I will say a brief word on Amendment 292J, proposed by noble Lords on the Public Services Committee, on which I and my noble friend Lady Wyld also serve. It backs one of the recommendations made in last week’s report and I support the case being made. Indeed, on 25 October, I tabled an amendment with the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, to help exactly the same group as mentioned in this amendment, namely children at risk of domestic violence and criminal exploitation. In that amendment, I argued for them to be given housing priority, so I hope the Minister will reply sympathetically to the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others.

I have added my name to Amendment 328, which is consequential to Amendment 320, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I add a brief footnote to what he said, in support of the campaign which he has long championed. On 23 April 2020, in an Oral Question about the Vagrancy Act 1824, I asked the Minister if he agreed that

“attitudes to those who sleep rough have softened over the past 200 years and that legislation which refers to ‘idle and disorderly’, ‘rogues’ and ‘vagabonds’ living in ‘coach-houses’ and ‘stables’ has no place in modern legislation”.

Later in that exchange, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, weighed in, saying:

“If Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, which was enacted after repeated harvest failures created an army of the dispossessed, were presented to us today, beyond the archaic language to which the noble Lord, Lord Young, has already referred, we should reject it as being vague and uncertain, and arguably tarnished with an improper reverse burden of proof.”—[Official Report, 23/4/20; col. 84.]


We have heard the Prime Minister’s words on this. The former Secretary of State at the then MHCLG said that, in his opinion, the Vagrancy Act, whose short title is

“An Act for the Punishment of idle and disorderly Persons, and Rogues and Vagabonds, in England”,


should be repealed. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, here we have an amendment that would deliver government policy. At Second Reading, the Minister said she was sure the House would hold her to account on her assurance that she was on the case—so here we are.

This is not the first attempt at repeal. On 17 August 1911, Sir William Byles asked the Home Secretary

“whether the new Recorder of Liverpool, Mr. Hemmerde, K.C., has just sentenced a young man, Edward Gillibanks, to twenty-five strokes with the birch, in addition to twelve months’ hard labour, for being an incorrigible rogue; and whether, in view of the effect of this form of punishment, he will consider the desirability of proposing the repeal of the Vagrancy Act”.

The Home Secretary, one Mr Churchill, replied:

“I cannot say that I think the punishment inflicted on him supplies an argument for repealing the Vagrancy Act.”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/8/1911; cols. 2103-04.]


Let us hope we fare a little better today.

It is now common ground that the Act does nothing to resolve or tackle the causes of homelessness. On the contrary, by directing rough sleepers down the criminal justice route, it risks isolating them from the very sources of help now generously provided by the Government, which can help them to rebuild their lives.

The right approach is set out in the thoughtful and comprehensive approach of Westminster City Council, detailed in its rough sleeping strategy, which outlines how rough sleeping can be sensitively handled in a borough to which the magnetism of the capital attracts so many. Every rough sleeper is offered a personalised and sustainable route away from the streets, based on their circumstances. The council has remodelled its services to accept women, who make up some 17% of rough sleepers, and can accommodate women who will not be parted from their dogs.

Westminster also makes it clear that it needs powers to deal with those who behave aggressively or anti-socially. The amendment contains the necessary provisions and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst will refer to other provisions on the statute book to deal with unacceptable behaviour. We have the perfect vehicle to bring our legislation up to date. I hope we are pushing at an open door and I look forward to the Minister’s gracious speech of acceptance.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, this Bill presents your Lordships with an opportunity to right a long-standing wrong and introduce a modest legislative change that is long overdue: it is our chance to repeal the cruel and unnecessary Vagrancy Act 1824, which makes rough sleeping a criminal offence.

The Vagrancy Act is a leftover from a long-past era. It was originally enacted in response to public disquiet over the numbers of destitute and often wounded demobbed soldiers returning from the Napoleonic wars. Even then, there was much opposition in Parliament, not least from William Wilberforce, to the notion of punishing people for being homeless. Today, it serves no useful purpose but instead has negative consequences: by casting the street homeless as criminals, the Act inhibits the referral of those sleeping rough to the services that can address their needs; it places a burden of enforcement on the police service when the issue is really one for community and social services; and it discourages homeless people themselves from seeking support, for fear of prosecution. Those convicted under the Act are landed with a fine of up to £1,000 and a criminal record, neither of which serves any purpose in helping people recover from homelessness.

There is a separate issue of aggressive begging and anti-social behaviour, for which the police need to retain some existing powers, and the amendment to be proposed when we reach that stage would repeal the Vagrancy Act. This amendment, devised by the homelessness charity Crisis and backed by a consortium of 50 knowledgeable bodies, ensures that this balance is maintained. Repealing this 200 year-old Act is supported by distinguished senior police figures, such as a colleague on the Cross Benches, my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, who says:

“Frontline police are called upon to make judgment calls about vulnerable people who are living on the streets … every day. There is a lot of pressure to act on issues like rough sleeping and begging … The Vagrancy Act implies it is the responsibility of the police primarily to respond to these issues, but that is a view firmly rooted in 1824. Nowadays, we know that multi-agency support and the employment of frontline outreach services can make a huge difference.”


Moreover, my noble friend adds that while the Vagrancy Act remains, homeless people are actively discouraged from engaging with the law, even when they are victims of dreadful violence and abuse, and he concludes:

“This does not help anyone”.


Support for repealing the Act comes not only from those grappling with its consequences on the front line but from policymakers across the political spectrum. The MPs speaking in the Westminster Hall debate last April led by Nickie Aiken, Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, represented all parties and different areas of the country. They included Bob Blackman, the instigator of the important and successful Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which I had the privilege of piloting through your Lordships’ House; Layla Moran, Oxford West and Abingdon, who has campaigned on this issue for many years; and Mike Amesbury, Weaver Vale, from Labour’s Front Bench, all unanimously supporting the Act’s abolition. The Minister in the other place, Eddie Hughes, noted the statement of Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State, that it was legislation

“whose time has been and gone … the Act itself, I think, should be consigned to history.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/4/21; col. 44WH.]

Taking this opportunity to repeal the Vagrancy Act now will surely strengthen the Government’s rough sleeping strategy and their laudable target of eliminating rough sleeping by 2024. It is our good fortune that a legislative opportunity has now emerged, in the form of the Bill before us today, which can finally resolve this matter. I know an amendment to repeal the pernicious and counterproductive legislation of 1824 will be strongly supported in this House, as witnessed by the supportive contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Perhaps that means that the Government will be able to tell us today that they will, in principle, be supportive of this change.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 8th March 2021 Lords Chamber

These amendments would help to make life easier for women in this situation— women whom we must remember on International Women’s Day.

[Lord Best (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 72 and the consequential Amendment 102 in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I speak for the three of us and I also thank the Chartered Institute of Housing for expert technical advice.

Amendment 72 calls for a period of grace from the imposition of the cap on the benefits of those escaping domestic abuse. In Committee, we noted that the benefit cap is a particular problem for those desperate to leave their current accommodation, both those victims of abuse who move out into a rented home and those who flee first to a refuge or temporary accommodation but need to move on into rented housing. The cap on benefits means that someone suffering from abuse may simply be unable to leave their abuser because this would mean that their income, after paying the rent, would not be enough to live on. The cap is likely to cut the benefit that they would otherwise receive by over £50 per week outside London and well over £100 per week in London. The benefit cap, therefore, traps them where they are.

There are other, special, unfairnesses caused by the benefit cap in domestic abuse cases. If an abused woman had been working and was forced to move out and start claiming benefits, she would be allowed a period of grace from the benefit cap, but not so if she was not in work. Yet as the debates on this Bill have illustrated, not working may have been the result of coercive control where the abuser has prevented the survivor from working. Even more unfairly, the imposition of the cap because the survivor has a third child may mean penalising someone for being the victim of non-consensual conception—the so-called rape clause.

Our solution is the simple one of exempting from the benefit cap for a year all those forced to claim benefits because of domestic abuse to give them the breathing space to shop around for more affordable accommodation or, where appropriate, to get a job. We are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman- Scott, the appropriate Lords Minister, who met with the three of us, introduced us to Mims Davies, the DWP Minister, and subsequently ensured that we received a full explanation of her department’s position.

It appeared to us that there is not an objection in principle to supporting victims of domestic abuse who could be greatly disadvantaged by the benefit cap, nor that there were difficulties in defining and identifying those who would be covered by the period of grace. However, because of administrative difficulties, the department’s preferred approach is for those facing this hazard to apply to the local authority for help in the form of a discretionary housing payment to assist with their rent.

I am bound to say that this alternative to allowing a straightforward, automatic period of grace is not very helpful. It represents a somewhat cumbersome and certainly insecure basis for overcoming the problem. Will the local authority be able to offer a discretionary housing payment to the abuse victim in these circumstances? DHPs must fund so many other cases—for example, relieving the hardship created for thousands by that notorious bedroom tax. The £180 million per annum set aside for DHPs is spread across all local councils. Moreover, DHPs are very often awarded for only a short period, such as three months. A woman who is desperate to get out of an abusive relationship but is trapped by knowing her capped benefits will not cover the basic necessities for life for herself and her children cannot risk moving out.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. Like her, I wish to speak to Amendments 152 and 190. The justice of the case for these amendments has been set out in the passionate, eloquent and comprehensive speech of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, and the equally powerful speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the other Lords who have spoken in this group. I cannot improve on what they said, but I simply wish to raise one matter of policy.

The cost of accommodation does not count towards the benefit cap if the survivor secures temporary accommodation provided by the local authority under its homelessness duty. Nor does it count if the survivor manages to find a place in a refuge or hostel owned by a social landlord. Currently, if the survivor moves into ordinary rented accommodation, the benefit cap will apply. That obviously means the amount on which the survivor and her children have to live on is diminished, often significantly. That is not good for the survivor and her children but it is also bad policy, which could be reversed by the adoption of these amendments. The amendments, if adopted, would free up refuges, hostels and local authority accommodation, all of which is currently in very short supply. It would also facilitate those who have secured such accommodation, moving out and into the private sector for rented accommodation, which is often cheaper overall. I hope those reasons, in addition to the reasons of justice advance by my noble friends, will persuade the Minister to adopt the amendments.

[Lord Best (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 152 and the related 190, which provide for a period of grace before those who have to leave an abusive relationship become subject to the cap on their benefits. I am honoured to be addressing this issue alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who is such a wonderful campaigner on social security issues, and also the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Perhaps I could take this opportunity to extend my own welcome to the right reverend Prelate, who is already proving such an asset to your Lordships’ House, not least with his extensive knowledge of the issues of housing and homelessness. The issue covered by Amendment 152 is, in large measure, about housing and housing costs. I declare my interest as chair of the Affordable Housing Commission. I thank the Chartered Institute of Housing for its briefing on this amendment.

Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 6) Order 2016

Lord Best Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as joint chair of the right-to-rent private landlords consultative panel at the Home Office. I jointly chair this panel with the Minister for Immigration, James Brokenshire. We have been meeting to discuss the right-to-rent measure every month or two since September 2014, with sub-groups meeting between the main panel meetings.

I was very critical of the right-to-rent proposals in your Lordships’ House before they became part of the Immigration Act 2014. I tabled nine amendments, all relating to the practicalities of requiring landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants. The House received a number of reassurances from the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, for which I was grateful, including arrangements for a pilot scheme in the West Midlands.

The panel, which continues to meet, includes representatives of landlords, tenants, property agents, all the relevant local authorities, three government departments and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. From this perspective, I hope, therefore, that I can provide some answers to the questions arising on this issue.

First, has the Home Office taken the whole process seriously? I can say definitively that this exercise has been taken very seriously by the Minister and the army of civil servants working on its implementation. I cannot claim technical knowledge of research methodologies, but I have been impressed by the Home Office team responsible for the evaluation of the West Midlands pilot, led by Andrew Zurawan. As far as I can tell, the different techniques deployed by the in-house and external researchers—surveys, focus groups, mystery shopping, comparisons with a control area where the right to rent was not in force—have all been conscientiously carried out. I fully recognise the limitations of any pilot evaluation process: it may take years, not months, for effects to work through; larger-scale surveys or surveys at different times of the year could produce fuller results; and so on. However, within the obvious constraints of this exercise, I think the team did a pretty good job.

Secondly, what has been the outcome of these efforts to date? It was never to be expected that the critics of this measure would reverse their opinions and accept the right to rent as a good idea. Nevertheless, I detected that the arrangements, even in the pilot, were not proving massively onerous for landlords or property agents. With the subsequent improvements to the approach—revision to the guidance, clarification and simplification of requirements for documents—the position for the rollout from 1 February certainly seems to be generally, if somewhat grudgingly, accepted. I am simply not convinced that the right to rent is causing huge anxieties for landlords; I have talked to landlords and agents who are far more concerned about tax changes and other regulatory measures affecting them.

No respectable landlord would wish to be letting to someone who is here illegally, not least since that tenant might be apprehended and removed and leave suddenly with unpaid rent, so already, of course, there are referencing procedures for those applying for a tenancy. Now that it is possible to view the pictures of the required documents for those who do not have a passport, their legal status should actually be easier to check.

I raised the question at the panel with those representing managing and letting agents: would it be best to use a professional specialist company to handle this aspect of the vetting of your potential tenants? The response was that this would be a waste of money and quite unnecessary as the whole exercise was now straightforward enough. I wonder how many landlords do not seek proper references or carry out checks on the identity of people to whom they grant tenancies. I strongly suspect that the landlords who will be affected by this measure know very well the illegal status of the tenants and are taking advantage of them in extracting exorbitant rents for abysmal conditions. The great benefit of the Home Office’s interest in enforcing the right to rent in the West Midlands was shown to be in bolstering the efforts of local authorities to weed out some pretty unpleasant elements in the private rented sector. I make no secret of the fact that my own interest in this matter is based on the increased opportunities for prosecuting those who exploit people in overcrowded slum conditions.

Thirdly, what about the continuing anxieties that innocent landlords may unwittingly, through ignorance rather than malicious intent, still fail to identify an illegal migrant before allocating a tenancy to them, and, as a result, end up with a hefty fine? The panel has received a very clear message on the ongoing role of the Home Office in advising and supporting landlords and agents. Mostly people will go online and should now find the necessary information relatively easy to access. However, sometimes landlords or agents could encounter a lack of any documentation or have queries about the documents they do see. They will want a definitive decision from the Home Office itself. It is important to note that when Home Office officials are asked to check the identity of a potential tenant, they must respond within 48 hours. If the landlord or agent is not told that the individual has no right to rent within this period, the letting can go ahead. Based on experience from the pilot, the Home Office has geared up its staffing to meet its extended commitments. In addition to this checking service, everyday inquiries about the whole arrangement can be discussed with trained operators on an expert helpline.

Ministers have constantly reiterated the point that any prosecution requires a high standard of proof, demonstrating that a landlord actually knows, or has good reason to believe, that they are indeed letting to an illegal immigrant. Ministers have underlined the point that no one will be prosecuted for failing to identify a cleverly forged document or false passport, let alone be held liable if an illegal migrant moves in with a legitimate tenant unbeknown to the landlord. The Home Office will ensure that the CPS is fully aware of the policy intent. The object is to target the real rogues, the criminal landlords who knowingly and repeatedly flout the law. Nevertheless, if the Minister wishes to offer additional reassurances tonight to this effect, I am sure that would be appreciated.

Fourthly, is the Home Office investing enough in communications to ensure that landlords and tenants are alerted to the new requirement on them? The panel has received very regular reports on the many efforts being made to get the message across and I am confident that there can be no managing and letting agents who are still in the dark. Whether every one of the 1.8 million landlords in the UK is yet aware of the arrangement, I would not be so sure. However, I fear that some of these landlords are ignorant of a good many other responsibilities they should understand. This problem may be more to do with the way we organise rented housing in this country, with such huge numbers of “amateur landlords” who may have no expertise in property matters, rather than a problem with the Home Office. Of more concern is the issue of communicating with tenants who sub-let or owners who take in lodgers. These may well be harder to reach, despite the Home Office’s efforts, and it may take time for word to get around that checks are needed. In the early stages of the right to rent, tolerance will be needed if mistakes are made, and I note that the fine for a first offence, if it goes all the way to being prosecuted, is set at £80.

I fully accept that once the communications efforts have succeeded and most people are aware of the right- to-rent arrangements, there is the danger of discrimination against those who are in this country perfectly legitimately but might be thought to be illegal immigrants. Sadly, discrimination on grounds of race and ethnicity has not been stamped out in the private rented sector. It was discerned as much among landlords in the control area, where right to rent was not an issue, as in the pilot area. Whether the problem will get worse or whether the raising in the right-to-rent procedures of the profile of discrimination as an issue will counterbalance it, I cannot tell. Right to rent could get the blame for suspected discrimination when in reality the problem lies elsewhere.

Today I hosted the launch by Crisis of an excellent report on the obstacles to renting privately for people who are on low incomes or have been homeless. We heard how few landlords now accept anyone in receipt of housing benefit. Indeed, 82% of landlords said they were not willing to house those who are homeless or about to become homeless. Many people face enormous difficulties in getting a rented home, quite outside the considerations of right to rent. Ministers have promised to continue to monitor the position in relation to discrimination in particular.

Bearing in mind that the right to rent was introduced in 2014 and that, after evaluating a pilot that did not demonstrate any insuperable problems, negative impacts from this measure have been addressed by Home Office Ministers and officials as conscientiously as could be hoped for, I cannot conclude that the rollout of the right to rent should be the subject of that most draconian of measures possible in your Lordships’ House, a fatal Motion of annulment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I have opposed these provisions from the outset, primarily because of the potential to increase discrimination in the housing market, but what is at issue now is whether full rollout of the scheme at this stage is consistent with the commitments made in both your Lordships’ House and the other place during the passage of the Immigration Act 2014. Like many other noble Lords who have spoken, I believe it is not.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said then that the Government’s intention was that the provision would be,

“subject to a phased implementation on a geographical basis. This will allow a proper evaluation of the scheme to ensure that it delivers its objectives without unintended consequences such as discrimination”.—[Official Report, 10/3/14; col. 1648.]

Later, he promised a “carefully phased” approach to the implementation. I am sure I am not the only Member of your Lordships’ House who understood that to mean that there would be a series of pilots in different geographical areas and of different kinds to get a representative picture of its effects—not that it would forge ahead, after a single phase in a single geographical area, involving a quick and not completely representative pilot, with no proper public debate about what we have learned from it and just some changes to the code of practice, which ILPA argues,

“do not appear to constitute a substantive response to the concerns identified in the evaluation”.

I believe that sufficient concerns were raised to cause us to pause rather than steam ahead regardless, as urged also by the Residential Landlords Association on the basis of research that it has carried out. The only reason that we are having this debate is because of the Motions in front of us.

I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Best, so what I am about to say is in no way casting aspersions on his role. I am sure that he will have brought the greatest integrity and expertise to overseeing the pilot scheme, but forgive me if I am cynical. A number of noble Lords have referred to this already but when the Prime Minister declared in May, five months before publication of the conclusions of all the hard work that went into the pilot,

“now we’ve got a majority, we will roll it out nationwide”,

surely it rather gave the game away. It suggested that the pilot would turn into something of a charade. It was as if all that important and serious work did not matter because a decision had already been made that it should be rolled out. All right, there have been some improvements to the code of practice but they do not amount to an awful lot.

Immigration Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Lords Chamber

I hope that my noble friend will realise that, as he has heard from these Benches, it is not just the Opposition or the Cross Benches, or those with a particular connection to this issue, such as Liberty, who are concerned; there is a fundamental concern about this legislation and a proper test is required. I say to the Minister that if there is a pilot scheme which is independently evaluated and is shown to have a real effect on illegal immigration, I will go along with it because it will be a worthwhile step. However, until we can prove that, it seems to me that the disadvantages and the things that make it incomprehensible to me demand that we look at this issue again. We must make this pilot scheme work before we roll it out.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I disagree with an awful lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, and in particular his comments on the so-called bedroom tax. But we will not go into that at this hour of the night.

During the passage of the Immigration Bill 2014 through the House of Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, made some important concessions from the original drafting. One of those was to set up the pilot scheme that turned out to be in the West Midlands. I was subsequently asked to chair the consultative group that would follow the pilot scheme and see whether all was well or everything fell apart as a result of this measure. I jointly chair this with the Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, and we have been meeting monthly or bi-monthly for the past year or so following the story as it has unfolded.

This has not been a trivial exercise. I assumed when I was joint chair with the Minister that he would come in at the beginning of the meeting, shake everyone’s hand and then clear off. It has not happened like that at all. The Minister has attended every meeting from beginning to end. My role has been very subservient to that, but it has given me an insight into how this pilot has worked out. I have also been to the West Midlands, met various landlords and talked to them about how they worry about these things. From that perspective, let me therefore report back on the pilot and the things have been going on in the Home Office.

There has been quite a considerable investment in this. A YouGov survey was carried out in the fairly early stages of the pilot. It was not awfully large, but then none of the surveys has been very large. It definitely indicated that landlords were saying how reluctant they were to get involved, that it was a nuisance, a bureaucratic nightmare and how they were more likely to turn people away if they suspected something from their accent or whatever. They said all those things. “Grumpy landlords” was the message coming back.

To take an important ingredient of that, discrimination, the pilot set up by the Home Office looked at the area of the West Midlands where the right to rent was being implemented and also looked at a comparison area elsewhere. I am not meant to say where the other area was. We kept it a secret so that the people there did not know they were being looked at in this particular way. But we had a series of mystery shopping exercises in which people phoned with funny accents or with the Oxford English referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and saw how they compared. In the comparison area, the discrimination existed as well as in the right-to-rent area. I am afraid that this does indeed prove that people—landlords and agents—take discriminatory attitudes towards the people whom they might accept as tenants. But it did not show that where right to rent had been introduced, the landlords behaved any differently than in the comparator area.

We did discover that some of the documentation that could prove that you were indeed entitled to be in this country was hard for landlords to understand and get their heads around. At the end of the process—and we only just have the final version—we developed a right-to-rent guide with pictures showing how documents relating to various aspects of identity from different countries looked for real. You would have to be pretty stupid not to be able to find in the guide the document that you are checking, if it exists. If landlords doubt whether the documentation is indeed genuine, they should—it would be unwise not to—phone the Home Office helpline.

We have asked Home Office officials what kind of resources are going into this helpline and how real it is. They have been extremely fast about answering calls, often within minutes. But if the scheme goes national, is the Home Office going to be able to fulfil the commitment that if a landlord or agent has not had a definitive response within 48 hours, the answer will have to be, “Yes, you can go ahead”? The Home Office is given 48 hours to say whether a particular person is here legally or not. If it does not get around to giving that answer because it is too busy, after 48 hours a landlord is absolutely in the clear to let to that individual. We wanted to make sure that the staffing was up to muster and that the helpline was properly serviced—and it is.

The steering group includes representatives from the landlord organisations who have been on both the main group and on sub-groups which have been looking at the discriminatory code and our code of conduct as well as at the evaluation exercise. We have had people from the Residential Landlords Association, the National Landlords Association and bodies that represent tenants’ interests. Shelter has joined, while Crisis has been there since the beginning. We have the GLA and the four local authorities in the West Midlands. These have been big and articulate meetings where people have been able to make the case and say the things they wanted to say.

We have been concerned throughout that the message would not get through. We need to communicate the fact that there is a right to rent and that both landlords and tenants have got to expect this little process to happen, as indeed it does for employers. Let us remember that this is only a parallel to employers being required to check the status of people who come to them for a job. We wanted to know that the communications exercise has been undertaken seriously. There has been a respectable budget for this work. A pretty good website has been set up so that people can see pictures of all the documents they need. There is social media networking using the landlords associations and showing the codes of conduct. Here I declare my interest as chairman of the Property Ombudsman. We have changed our code and we are publicising that. We have to get it out through the landlord networks, which have been co-operative.

From the beginning to the end, absolutely no one, either landlords or tenants, has welcomed this scheme. It is an imposition on them. But it has been an imposition since the passing of the 2014 Act and people are getting used to the idea that it is part of what you do before you undertake a letting. Landlords already need to take references because they want to know that people are going to be able to pay the rent into the indefinite future. They want to know that people really are who they say they are. Passports are regularly required by letting agents, so someone would already not get much further without one. The extra documentation may make life a bit easier for people now that it is clear what designates an individual as being in this country legally or illegally.

When we get to the penalties for offences, I am again interested because rogue landlords are a major problem in all of our big cities. There are people who exploit the tenants who come to them, and in particular they can exploit those who are not here legally. So far, these landlords have not been deterred from doing all kinds of horrendous things, so I welcome the Home Office having joined in and taking an interest as a major additional enforcement agency when it comes to knocking on the doors of landlords who are letting appalling properties at high rents and definitely exploiting the occupiers of those properties. The Home Office has been joining in with local authority enforcement officers, who have often felt rather bereft of the powers they need. They have found that landlords who have been behaving very badly come away from the magistrates’ court having been fined £500 and writing that off as a business expense because they are taking £5,000 a month for a house that is grossly overcrowded and where people are being treated abysmally.

Having the Home Office there adds another dimension to this. It is a powerful extra ally for those of us who are very much opposed to rogue landlords up and down the country, and I welcome its presence. This partnership between the Home Office and local authorities is now a hallmark. When people from the different local authorities in the West Midlands were asked how they felt the exercise had gone at the end of our last meeting, the comment was that there is now a new kind of partnership between the Home Office and local authorities at the local level in areas where they have been targeting rogue landlords.

Immigration Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, the points I am raising on the Bill relate to the extension of the right to rent provisions introduced through the Immigration Act 2014. When we considered the previous Bill, I spoke against the right to rent measures which place a requirement on landlords or their agents to check the immigration status of potential tenants. Landlords saw that as an unwelcome new regulatory burden, and the representatives of tenants saw it as being likely unintentionally to exclude people with every right to be in this country but who might be suspected of being illegal immigrants.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, was then the responsible Minister in this House and, thankfully, he won the approval of his Home Office colleagues to make a number of improvements to that legislation as it went through Parliament. It was agreed that, in effect, student lettings should be excluded from the rigours of the legislation and that a localised pilot scheme would be organised from which lessons could be learned before the right to rent was rolled out nationally.

Subsequently I agreed to chair, jointly with the Minister for Immigration, James Brokenshire, a consultative panel comprising representatives from the local authorities in the pilot area of the West Midlands, representatives from other government departments and representatives of landlords, tenants and agents. This role has enabled me to observe the Home Office both putting considerable energy into its efforts to communicate the new duties for landlords and agents through conferences, newspaper articles, social media and so on, and approaching the enforcement of the new measures carefully and methodically.

This Bill now toughens up the sanctions against landlords who fail to check the immigration status of tenants subsequently found to be in the country illegally. Instead of a civil penalty with fines after the second offence of up to £3,000, as in the 2014 Act, this Bill would mean that the landlord or their agent could be charged with a criminal offence, with the possibility of an unlimited fine and/or up to five years in prison.

In response to the concerns of the landlord bodies on the consultative panel, the Government have introduced in this Bill new powers for landlords which make it easier to evict a tenant found to be an illegal migrant without necessarily needing to go through the courts and with a new grounds for possession where the courts are involved. In some instances, the Bill provides for landlords to engage the services of High Court enforcement officers. I recognise that these provisions can themselves create concerns but I have also noted the following points from the consultation panel discussions.

First, the legislation does not affect any existing lettings. It relates only to future lettings, where landlords, or their agents, must now check the status of the applicant before granting the tenancy. Secondly, if the landlord is in any doubt about the legal status of a potential tenant, the new Home Office checking service, with its telephone hotline, is properly geared up to give a yes or no answer within 48 hours. If the landlord does not receive the Home Office’s response within this timescale, they can go ahead with the letting without fear of breaking the law. Thirdly, the experience of the arrangements in the West Midlands has not demonstrated special problems for either landlords or tenants, and it has fostered new and better working relationships between councils and the Home Office. Fourthly, unsurprisingly, in an earlier YouGov poll conducted for Shelter, private landlords said that they would be less likely to let to people who did not hold British passports or appeared to be immigrants. However, the pilot has led to simplifications in the requirements on landlords, spelled out in a code of practice which sets out all the documents—of which a passport need not be one—that will satisfy the right to rent criteria.

Finally, I have noted potential gains on the housing front from these new measures. They involve the Home Office devoting extra resources to target areas in which rogue landlords who prey on the vulnerability of illegal migrants are known to be at large. Local authorities very often lack the resources needed to pursue bad landlords who let abysmal slums at high rents, with accompanying overcrowding and sheer exploitation. Moreover, the penalties currently imposed on landlords who offend have proved trivial set against the income that the landlords have been extracting. Joint working between councils and the Home Office can greatly enhance the potency of any drive to enforce proper standards at the bottom end of the private rented sector, and the serious fines and threat of imprisonment for serial offenders contained in the Bill should make the worst of these rogue landlords wake up and take notice.

Therefore, while I recognise entirely that neither landlords nor tenants are likely to be positive about any new requirements on them, I do not believe that this legislation will create major problems for decent landlords or legitimate tenants. Nevertheless, the Residential Landlords Association still has fears that innocent landlords could be caught up in potentially heavy-handed action by Home Office officials. The Immigration Minister has made it clear to the consultative panel that there is no likelihood of prosecutions being pursued against landlords who, through no fault of their own, find themselves breaking the law, and only in extreme circumstances—where the landlord repeats the offences knowingly and persistently—would a criminal prosecution be pursued. To put the position beyond doubt, I ask the Minister to repeat this reassurance on the record today as explicitly as possible and to keep a watchful eye on whether the “right to rent” leads to problems for entirely legitimate tenants. I ask the Minister to commit today to a future evaluation of this measure, building on the Home Office’s helpful research for the pilot stage.