Housebuilding

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Best

Thursday 30th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

[Lord Best (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that, of the 300,000 target, 10% or 30,000 homes ought to be for older people’s housing—retirement housing—because this gives us terrific gains in terms of health and care facilities? It also means two for one because, for every one of those homes, another is released by an older person moving on. Can we in the levelling-up Bill therefore insist on local authorities including provision for older people—retirement housing—in their local plans?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Best

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(1) The Vagrancy Act 1824 is repealed.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(3) The following are repealed— (a) the Vagrancy Act 1935;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

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Best

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[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.