My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend as well. I share her concerns about criminalisation. I agree so much with everything that has been said so far, so let me see if I can extract the questions from my notes. First, with regard to this new provision—as it appears it will be—as against Sections 6 and 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, how are decisions to be taken as to whether to prosecute under one of those sections or under what is currently Clause 136? Is Government guidance going to be given or will it be provided by the CPS?
One of my noble friend's amendments refers to the police and enforcement. Clearly, she is right to draw attention to that because it is a matter of enforcement. Her first amendment, relating to 12 months, strikes me as being quite modest given that the provisions in force, the Empty Dwellings Management Orders—they were brought in when there were nearly 700,000 empty homes but the figure may well be higher—provide a six-month exemption. A period of 12 months therefore seems quite modest.
I am also concerned about the term ““residential””. In its bare form, is that term used elsewhere in legislation? The suggestion in the amendments is to link this to classes of use. The Bill provides simply for ““residential”” to be a building, "““designed or adapted … for use as a place to live””."
I am not sure what ““live”” means or what permanence that implies. I know of a number of buildings that are adapted as places to reside. I would include in those City offices where in the past I have had all-night meetings and I know that those had every facility one could possibly need. I daresay government departments have those as well.
Finally, I should like to pick up the references made to the vulnerability of people who find themselves in a position where they take the decision to squat. It is hardly a decision because it is the only course open to them aside from rough sleeping. It is not a desirable thing to do and I do not believe that most people who do this would not prefer conventional accommodation. One of the organisations which has been in touch with some noble Lords is called Squash, which is almost an acronym for Squatters' Action for Secure Homes. That is such a telling name. What is being proposed will drive people who want secure homes into much more dangerous situations. I am delighted that my noble friend has put so much effort into addressing the issues raised by these clauses.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hamwee
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 20 March 2012.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
736 c891-2 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-06-10 14:42:46 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_819756
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_819756
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_819756