§ 3.16 p.m.
§ Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they have given to the possibility that the proposal to outlaw begging might be found to he contrary to Article 2 or Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, Section 3 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as amended already makes begging in a public place an offence. On conviction, the offender may be sentenced to a maximum fine of £1,000. We have no plans to change the formulation of the offence or to increase the penalties. No one in this country should beg. We need to protect more vulnerable people from being drawn into street activity and to guard against the sustaining of harmful drug addictions.
The White Paper on anti-social behaviour published today looks at making the offence of begging recordable. Making the offence of begging recordable would enable the police and the courts to take into account the full range of begging offences and other criminal offences. In addition, after three fines, courts would have the option of imposing a community penalty, which could involve drug treatment. We do not consider that the measures would contravene Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
§ Earl RussellMy Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for explaining the Government's intentions better than whoever recently informed the press did. I hope that the Minister received notice of my request to know also how many people are at present subject either to total or partial benefit sanctions. Does he agree that if people are deprived of income, and if thereafter an attempt is made to prevent them achieving an income by begging, there is a risk that that double whammy might be held to cross the threshold of destitution used to establish inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, I received several conflicting accounts of what the noble Earl's supplementary question would be. But one of them was that that he would ask that question.
Benefit sanctions fall into two categories. The first is where the conditions of the benefit are such that, if you do not comply with them, you lose all or part of the benefit. The best example is jobseeker's allowance. In 2001–02, 193,001 were so sanctioned. The noble Earl will know that research on the effect of that sanction was carried out and published. Loss of benefit had a significant impact on the respondents. Some had fears of falling into debt and some were able to claim hardship payments. Respondents differed in how the disallowance or sanction had influenced their behaviour, Very many of them ceased the conduct that led to the sanction, for example, refusing to carry out directions in seeking jobs.
1318 There is a second, separate category; namely, where benefit sanctions are imposed as a result, for example, of non-compliance with a community sentence. The number of people so sanctioned between 15th October 2001 and 3rd January 2003 was 612.
§ Lord St John of FawsleyMy Lords, does not the proposal further to penalise beggars run contrary to something of even higher authority than the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the beatitudes? They declare unequivocally and unreservedly, "Blessed are the poor". Why should such people be penalised further, when they are in desperation?
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, as I made clear to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the proposal is not designed to penalise such people further or to increase the amount of the fine. The purpose is to record the fact that someone has been fined. If he or she has been fined on three occasions, it will be possible for the courts to impose a community sentence that might help them to get out of the circumstances that led to begging. Many of them are dependent on drugs. A community sentence could help them to deal with that.
Baroness SharpiesMy Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that many of the beggars on the Underground are foreigners and very possibly, I imagine, illegal immigrants? What can we do about them?
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, one sees that people of a range of nationalities are involved. The right thing to do is to make sure that we have a record of the occasions on which such people have come up against the authorities so that we do not just go on and on imposing a fine but do more intrusive things to help them.
§ Baroness Williams of CrosbyMy Lords, does the Minister recognise that many asylum seekers, genuine or not, have no idea that they must make an immediate claim for benefit on their arrival in this country? Recent research by some of the detainee visitors' boards shows that, in several airports, there is no clear indication in different languages that that is a requirement for receiving benefit. Some of the people begging are simply unaware that they could have made a claim and have no means of support.
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, there should be notices at all embarkation or arrival ports for aircraft, or whatever, indicating the position. I agree that proper notice should be given. The Question was about begging and about what happens when someone comes up against the law. The proposal that has been made is that the courts should not simply go on fining such people but should make sure that they can intervene in other ways. Members in all parts of the House will applaud that.
§ The Countess of MarMy Lords, some time ago I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, what the point of fining beggars was. What is the success rate for recovering the money that such people are fined?
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, I do not have those statistics. The noble Countess makes a good point. It indicates why it is sensible, after a beggar has been fined on several occasions, that the courts should try something else rather than simply fining them again. That is why making the information recordable and giving the courts the power to pass a community sentence after the third offence may be a more productive way forward.
§ The Lord Bishop of DerbyMy Lords, does the Minister agree that, as well as the effort and energy put into outlawing beggars, a good deal of effort, energy and other resources could be put into helping organisations such as the Salvation Army that do their best to keep beggars off the streets in a humane and caring way?
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, I agree entirely. An example might be the work into which the Government put significant resources to help people who were otherwise sleeping rough into hostels and, beyond that, into more permanent accommodation. I agree with the point made by the right reverend Prelate.
§ Earl FerrersMy Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that, although there may be great sympathy—quite correctly—for people who are poor, there is not a great deal of sympathy for beggars? I was once accosted by a beggar who, when I declined his invitation, referred to me as "an effing judge". In that instance, he was incorrect in his use of both the adjective and the noun, although it may have been a reflection of his view of the judiciary. Having had no success with me, he turned and accosted some young ladies, again without success. When a police car arrived, he took cover.
The inference to be drawn is that he knew that he was doing wrong and that the police have an effect. Such incidents cause great distress to people in the streets, who do not like to see them happen. That does not mean that people are not sympathetic to someone's condition.
§ Lord Falconer of ThorotonMy Lords, I am not sure which the noble Earl found more offensive—the "effing" or the "judge". I apologise to all the judges in the House—and to all the others. The noble Earl makes a valid point. There are many reported incidents of aggressive begging, which causes considerable distress to people using public places. That is why it is important to deal as effectively as possible with begging, for the sake of the people who use the streets and of the beggars themselves. They should not be in the degrading position of having to beg.