Vagrancy (Amendment) (Hansard, 25 June 1991)

§ Mr. Ken Hargreaves (Hyndburn)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. The history of the Vagrancy Act is a lengthy one. The mischief at which the Act was aimed was not begging per se but vagrancy as a way of life—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Will hon. Members who are not remaining in the Chamber for this matter please leave quietly?

§ Mr. Hargreaves
Vagrancy as a way of life was considered to be a threat to the economic stability of society.
The black death of 1348 resulted in a shortage of agricultural labour. In order to ensure that those capable of work did not remain idle, a law was passed shortly afterwards stating that giving alms to those deemed capable of work was an offence. An Act passed in 1530 made begging an offence but only if the defendant was fit and able to work. The emphasis was again on prosecuting vagrancy as a way of life.
The Vagrancy Act 1824 was introduced as a measure to deal with specific problems in Britain following the Napoleonic wars. The large numbers of soldiers who arrived, and who were discharged on to the streets with no job and no accommodation, were joined by a massive influx of economic migrants from Ireland and Scotland who travelled to England, and especially London, in search of work. The ancient pass laws were of no use in dealing with the increased numbers of homeless and penniless urban poor. The Vagrancy Act was therefore introduced as a method of dealing with a specific early 19th-century problem.
The Act makes it an offence to sleep on the streets or to beg. In essence, therefore, it is a crime in England and Wales to be homeless or to cadge subsistence money. When the Act was passed, criticism of it centred on the fact that it created a catch-all offence. To sleep on the streets or to beg subsistence became a crime, whatever reason an individual might have had for being in such a predicament. That provision still pertains today.
Until recently it was believed that the Vagrancy Act 1924 had largely withered away through lack of use. In recent years, however, as the number of homeless people sleeping out has risen, the use of the Act has increased dramatically, especially in the Metropolitan police district.
In 1988, in England and Wales, some 573 people were prosecuted and convicted under the Vagrancy Act. In May 1990, the National Association of Probation Officers carried out a survey of the prosecutions under the Act. That survey revealed that 1,250 prosecutions had been dealt with in 14 central London magistrates courts in that year, which represented an enormous leap in the number of prosecutions under the Act, especially in London.
The number of people sleeping out has indeed risen dramatically in recent years—again, especially in London. Homelessness is a great social problem, which only far-reaching policy initiatives can address. The abolition of the Vagrancy Act will not of itself solve the problem. Sleeping out and begging are the result of homelessness; they are social, not criminal, evils, and it is not and should not be the role of criminal law to punish those who have 864 already been marginalised by their predicament. That applies particularly to the most vulnerable groups— the young and the mentally ill—who have been reduced to life on the streets.
The Vagrancy Act 1824 serves not to alleviate but to compound the problems of those who are forced to sleep out, and to beg to survive. Those who are convicted under the Act are frequently fined; to pay the fine, they have to beg. Other sentences include short periods in prison, probation orders and conditional discharges.
The aquisition of a criminal record further disadvantages the homeless person in the employment and housing markets. In 1980, the Select Committee on Home Affairs concluded that the offence of begging should not be regarded as a means of dealing with the problem of homelessness, but declined to recommend its repeal: it was felt that, if it were repealed, the police would be powerless to act in response to a complaint, or to mitigate a genuine public nuisance.
In 1986, however, Parliament passed the Public Order Act. The Act gives the police powers to act in response to a complaint or to mitigate a genuine public nuisance". The very words used by the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1980 as a reason for not recommending 1he repeal of the Vagrancy Act were used in the 1986 Act that gave the police new powers.
On 11 December 1990, it was said in another place that the Act also provided for action against unlicensed pedlars, indecent behaviour on the part of common prostitutes and dishonest fortune tellers; but schedule 1 to the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1989 repealed the legislation that had created those offences. Surely, whatever arguments there once were for retaining the Vagrancy Act have long since been made redundant.
Let there be no misunderstanding. My Bill does not seek to protect those who use violence or intimidation to obtain money; that offence is covered by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. It does not seek to protect the professional beggars whom we see on the streets of London; that offence is covered by section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. Nor does it seek to protect those who cause, permit or encourage a child to beg; that offence is covered by section 4 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. It does, however, seek to decriminalise vagrancy, and in so doing it has the support of the Law Society, the National Childrens Home, the National Association of Probation Officers and many other groups.
If, as we have been told in the past, the basic purpose of the vagrancy laws is to preserve public order and decency and to protect individuals from offence or injury, it seems clear that we are now adequately served—not least by the laws that I have cited. We have been told by the police that they arrest people only when there is an element of threatening or intimidating behaviour. Nowhere in sections 3 and 4 of the 1824 Act are the words "threatening" and "intimidating" used; the offence specified is begging itself.
If threatening or intimidating behaviour is used, the police should prosecute, but that should be done under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986—which properly deals with such circumstances—and not under sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act.
In 1989, a total of 1,256 people were prosecuted and brought to London magistrates courts for the simple offence of begging. That can mean only that in those cases 865 there was no element of threatening or intimidating behaviour, because, had there been, the police would have been obliged to prosecute under section 5 of the Public Order Act.
In a letter to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) dated 22 February 1990, a Home Office Minister said: There is no specific power of arrest attached to the 1824 Act, and sleeping rough and begging are not arrestable offences under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but there is a general power of arrest in section 25 of the Act if the suspect's name and address are not known or the address given is doubtful, in which case it would be impossible to serve a summons; or where there are reasonable grounds to believe that arrest is necessary to prevent the suspect from causing unlawful damage to property, committing an offence against public decency or causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway. As it is not possible to serve a summons on homeless people, they are always dealt with by way of arrest.
The Government correctly point out that the offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act are not imprisonable—offenders are generally fined—but there is an additional sentence of imprisonment in default of payment. Homeless and penniless people therefore have two likely courses of action—to beg to raise money for the fine or to spend time in custody. Therefore, they are likely to be imprisoned for offences that in 1982 the Government felt were not sufficiently serious to merit such punishment.
The people about whom we are talking who appear in court on vagrancy charges will be cold and hungry, they neither ask for nor receive legal aid, they will not understand the court proceedings, and they will probably plead guilty. In practice, those who appear before the courts are summarily convicted. They are fined money that they do not have, and may then serve a 24-hour sentence in lieu of payment of fine. They then go back on the streets whence they came. How does that help them? How does it help society? Homelessness is a social problem, not a crime.
In recent years and months, the Government have sought to tackle the problem of homelessness by the provision of more accommodation. That, and help and advice, is a better way of dealing with these unfortunate people. The Bill would help to ensure that we treat them as human beings and not as criminals.