HL Deb 12 July 1990 vol 521 cc434-7

3.13 p.m.

Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:

How many persons were convicted under the Vagrancy Acts in the period 1st January 1980 to 31st December 1989.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)

My Lords, information for 1989 will not be available until the autumn. Convictions during the years 1980 to 1988 were as follows:

1980 3,775
1981 3,291
1982 3,545
1983 3,055
1984 2,636
1985 2,168
1986 1,902
1987 1,965
1988 2,166.
Most convictions under this legislation are for indecent exposure or being on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose. In 1988, 512 convictions were for begging and 13 for sleeping rough.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that informative and detailed Answer. Can he confirm that the figures show a dramatic increase in recent years in the number of prosecutions and convictions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, particularly in the Metropolitan Police area? As a result, many people now have criminal records through no fault of their own; they were simply unable to find accommodation that they could afford. Their only crime was to be homeless. Does the Minister accept that such criminalisation of people is tantamount to using an archaic law in order to disguise a serious modern social problem? Would it not be more humane and constructive to repeal Sections 3 and 4 of the 1824 Act and use the vast amount of alternative legislation? Should we not introduce new legislation to make available empty properties in a further step towards finding a solution to the problems of homelessness?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the Act may be fairly ancient and some of its contents may be fairly quaint but it is still operative. Section 3 refers to: every Petty Chapman or Pedlar wandering abroad and trading, without being duly licensed, or otherwise authorized by Law; every Common Prostitute wandering in the public Streets or public Highways or in any Place of public Resort, and behaving in a riotous or indecent Manner". The legislation is fairly quaint.

In recent years there has been a strong downward trend. There are now only half the number of prosecutions under the Act that there were 10 years ago. Most prosecutions are for indecent exposure or being on enclosed premises for unlawful purposes. Therefore, they bear little relation to being homeless.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, under the Act has there been an increase in the number of convictions of people under the age of 21?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness the figures relating to people under 21 years but I can give the figures for those under the age of 17. The number has decreased. During 1980, 1981 and 1982 about 7 per cent. of the total number of people convicted under the Vagrancy Act were under the age of 17. During 1983, 1984 and 1985 the figure dropped to 6 per cent. During 1986 and 1987 it was 4 per cent. and in 1988 it was 3 per cent.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

My Lords, will the Minister accept figures that were given to me only last week showing that 1,400 teenagers faced conviction in the central London area? Does the Minister agree that that is a further disadvantage for young people when trying to gain employment? Not only are they homeless and have little money but they also have a conviction which will go against them when applying for a job?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I daresay that it may, but they should not have committed the offence in the first place. The noble Baroness has given various figures. I do not know whether they are correct because I do not know to what they refer. In 1988 only 72 people under the age of 17 were convicted under the Vagrancy Act. In 19813 seven people under the age of 17 were convicted under the Act. I agree that if a person has a conviction it is difficult for him or her to obtain employment. One of the problems is that people tend to come to London believing that there are many opportunities. It is important that they should not do so unless they first know that they can obtain employment.

Lord Alexander of Weedon

My Lords, the statement recently made by Mr. Michael Spicer as regards what is to be done to lessen the problem of homelessness was a very welcome first step. Perhaps I may ask whether my noble friend agrees that it would be an appropriate corollary to that to remove homelessness as an offence from the criminal legislation? Is it not now time to recognise that that part of the 1825 legislation, which had a quite different economic context, should be removed from our statute book?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, nobody is convicted of homelessness unless they have positively spurned the offer of free accommodation. Therefore, that part of the Act is used very rarely.

Lord Mellish

My Lords, as we are talking about homelessness, is it not a fact that the vast majority of homeless people have been discovered to be mentally handicapped, and that something is now being done for them? Will the Minister say something about that?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, yes. A certain amount is being done about that. This morning my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health announced that £5 million will be made available over two years for hostel places for mentally ill homeless people.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, is it not a national disgrace, quite apart from the question of a blot on the Government, that any youngsters under the age of 17 are convicted either of sleeping rough or of begging? Is it a case for welfare people or police advice, but not a case for prosecution?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, it may well be a disgrace that people under the age of 17 are convicted of anything. However, I say to the noble Lord that he has put forward an astonishing suggestion because those people are convicted only if they have transgressed the law. He said that it is a disgrace that young people should be convicted of begging or sleeping rough. In 1988, there were no such convictions of people under the age of 17.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, in his first reply to me, the noble Earl mentioned a number of offences. He mentioned indecent exposure and prostitution in the streets, and so on. Is he aware that alternative laws are capable of being used to deal with the criminal aspects of this social problem? My point and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, is that we must take criminalisation away from homelessness. That must be removed from the statute book, and the sooner the better. The legislation was introduced to deal with social problems in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars. It is generally accepted that those wars are finished. We should now make sure that the legislation is abolished, and we should use the modern, up-to-date legislation to deal with the criminal offences.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, homelessness is not necessarily the same as sleeping rough. It is still an offence to sleep rough; but you can be convicted only if you refuse the offer of free accommodation.

Homelessness is covered elsewhere other than in the Vagrancy Act, and a great deal is being done to encourage less homelessness.