Sue Miller

My Lords, before I turn to the main subject of my speech, I must say how surprised I was that the noble Lord, Lord Myners, chose to mock the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. Coming as he does from Cornwall, I would have thought that he would be on the side of the small producers who, in the past, have often had such a raw deal. I am very surprised that he did not welcome that. I warmly welcome it as it is long overdue.

The main subject of my speech is the environment. Today we are meant to concentrate equally on the environment and the other subjects but the environment is having a raw deal this afternoon as regards the time devoted to it. Today is also the centenary of the founding of what we now know as the wildlife trusts. They were founded in May 1912 by Charles Rothschild, who held a meeting to discuss his radical idea about saving places for nature. That meeting led to the formation of the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, which would become the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts and signalled the beginning of UK nature conservation as we know it. There are now 47 wildlife trusts covering the whole of the UK, the Isle of Man and Alderney. Through thick and thin-hard times, recessions and good times-they command tremendous public support.

The wildlife trusts do an amazing job: raising public awareness about wildlife, getting local communities involved and campaigning on local and national issues. They collect scientific evidence and their records of wildlife declines and increases are invaluable. They promote wildlife-friendly methods of farming and land management. I congratulate them on their centenary.

At both a macro and micro level, the environment is critical to the economy. As Nick Clegg said in his speech on 11 April this year, the environment contributes to our economy in a range of ways, many of which we do not always appreciate. He went on to say that lean times can be green times. His comments followed the Government's review of EU habitats regulations. The review came to the welcome and correct conclusion that habitats regulations are not a burden on development.

It is not just economic contributions that are important. Many people feel uplifted by seeing a cloud of peacock butterflies on a buddleia bush or watching a heron fish, which we can do in central London-and many of us have. There is something equally special about the experience of hearing a lark's song miles from anywhere after a stiff climb up a mountain, or seeing a herd of red deer grazing. In every case, one species does not stand alone; it is part of an ecosystem, with some at the top of the food chain such as buzzards or stoats-an animal close to your Lordships' hearts-or moles, which of course are at the top of the in-soil food chain. Instead of swearing at the molehill in the lawn, one should welcome it as a sign of a richly biodiverse soil.

I welcome especially our Government's initiatives, including the natural capital initiative, in which a leading UK forum will bring together scientists, policy-makers, business, industry and others to discuss how the ecosystem approach might be implemented in practice. Defra has just launched the Ecosystems Knowledge Network, which is a resource for anyone wanting to share knowledge or learn about the practical benefits of the ecosystems approach. These are very important developments towards understanding why it is important not just to save individual species but to join up the networks so that every species can be part of the chain.

In June, we will have the Rio+20 conference. There are no major treaties this time-it will be more about ways of working and sharing knowledge. The ecosystem will be recognised as the foundation of life. There will be moves to monetarise natural capital and realise its value. However, as invaluable and irreplaceable as ecosystems are, they need to be valued for themselves as well. I wish Rio+20 much good luck and look forward to hearing from the Government what our contribution will be to a successful conference.

I thank my noble friend for his reply. Does he share my concern that, worldwide, momentum seems to be going in the wrong direction? In fact, hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent on modernising weapons systems, increasing the number of weapons in many countries. It is one of the few things that seem to have escaped austerity cuts in spending. How does my noble friend think that we can revive the focus, particularly the political focus, on this crucial issue of non-proliferation?

To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their priorities for the forthcoming session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in Vienna.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether squatters who leave their squat and become homeless are regarded as intentionally or unintentionally homeless; and what impact Clause 136 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will have on this designation if it becomes law.

My Lords, what importance do the Government give to some of the work being undertaken at, for example, the University of Leeds on the development of water-free washing machines and at other institutions on water-free lavatories? Is not the effort on finding ways of using much less water worthy of a great deal of investment?

My Lords, this is a slightly confusing situation when a money Bill has to be presented by a Defra Minister. I hope that that device, if I may call it that, or the process that this is going through, will not be one that our Government have to resort to very often. I do not want to detain the House at all. I want to give up the time that I would have used to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who has worked on this issue for many years. Simply, I would say that having lived in the south-west myself for so many years, I am extremely happy to see this coming forward. I am also looking forward very much to hearing the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who worked so hard on this issue with the commission that he chaired.

I have one question. Presumably the infrastructure that was mentioned as being eligible for grant, loan or guarantee is hard rather than soft engineering or very different solutions such as fitting all houses with waterless lavatories, if that were an option in future. I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.

My Lords, I move this amendment because of the reasons expressed from all sides of the House, and because it is my hope that the House of Commons might debate this properly as it did not have a chance to do so in Committee.

My Lords, I am tremendously grateful to all Members of the House who spoke in this debate-which finally had the airing that it deserved, even though it was late-and to all Members of the House who stayed to hear it. It was an incredibly important debate about whether we should choose to criminalise a section of society. Many extremely good points were made and I will not rehearse them all at this hour. One theme that ran through all the speeches was that of unintended consequences.

I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is society's responsibility to look after the vulnerable-and, I would add, the homeless. That responsibility does not include criminalising them; that is where we part company. However, I see that Amendment 36 is problematic, and I accept the criticisms around the definition of "residential". We were trying to offer something that was slightly better than what was in the Bill.

Noble Lords concentrated on the issue of what people will do. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, the housing is not there and cannot be created in an instant. Therefore, there will be a group of people who will face very difficult decisions about whether to stay in a squat and be criminalised, to sleep rough or to present themselves to their local authority. We keep coming back to the issue of local authorities and consultation. I think that the Minister accepted that consultation with local authorities was the key. The House would feel very reassured if that were put in the Bill.

While accepting that my other amendments are faulty, I will seek in due course to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 41. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 36.

Amendment 36 withdrawn.

Amendment 37 not moved.

Clause 147 : Offence of buying scrap metal for cash etc

Amendment 38

Moved by Lord Faulkner of Worcester

38: Clause 147, page 133, leave out lines 34 to 39

My Lords, during the passage of this Bill we have learnt that there is no need for this clause because squatting in people's homes is already criminal. We have learnt that there was a big need for guidance and we would not be where we are today unless there had been an abject failure of successive Governments to issue any guidance on the use of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. If enforcement of those more reasonable measures in that Act had been properly understood, duplicating the legislation in this much harsher way would not have seemed necessary; nor is there a demand for it.

I thank my noble friend the Minister for our two meetings. She also wrote to me after the Report stage to say that the Government consultation was evidence of demand, so I looked again at the results of the consultation. In fact, out of the 2,217 people who responded, 96 per cent did not want to see any action taken to criminalise squatting, and even more surprisingly, only 10 people, 0.5 per cent of all the respondents, wrote in to say that they had been the victims of squatting. I do not feel that either need or demand has been demonstrated.

We have also learnt that this is going to cost a good deal. In a Bill that is all about cost cutting, even the Government's own impact assessment suggests that the cost of this measure will be between £5 million and £10 million, which is a pretty wide estimate. However, those figures are probably optimistic. If the clause is enforced, it will cost the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office many tens of millions in enforcement, court time, rehabilitation, curfew monitoring and so on, and that is before we get to the costs of rehousing.

I am still against this clause in every way but, on the basis that the Government are determined to push it through, I must look at mitigating in any way I can the injustices being perpetrated against the homeless, and that is the purpose of the amendments I have tabled. My noble friend Lady Hamwee will go into greater detail on the definition of "residential", which we feel is still inadequate. I will address my comments to the commencement of the clause. What will happen to those individuals who will be affected when the law is changed? I need to know about the practicalities of how individual homeless people who are currently squatting will get to know about the change in the law, or will they simply be criminalised overnight? Could there be a system of warning them and offering help to find alternatives? Are local authorities actually prepared to do that?

With nothing set out in the Bill, how will the Government ensure that appropriate help is offered? Evidence given to us by the charity Crisis, which has researched this issue, shows that when squatters who want to leave a squat present themselves to their local authority for help with housing, they are given a home-finder pack that at best contains a list of landlords, but since they have no money, the pack is of little help. They may be given a list of hostels, but some 2,000 hostel beds have been lost in the past year, so the hostels are likely to be full. Can my noble friend tell me what should happen then? There is nothing in the Bill to suggest even consultation with local authorities, let alone powers to make them act. Can squatters be deemed to be intentionally homeless, because then local authorities have no obligation at all to house them? They would automatically be denied help. Will the Government invite representatives of Crisis, a charity which does so much for the homeless, to work with officials on potential transitional measures? They might be able to offer some practical suggestions for measures that could be put in place to support homeless people who are squatting.

Finally, I should like to ask my noble friend about empty dwelling management orders. The number of empty homes is staggering, at over 720,000 across the UK. In London alone, there are some 74,500 empty homes. Some of them are owned by local authorities and housing associations, which is a bit of an irony since those bodies are meant to be in the business of housing people. However, by far the greatest number of empty homes are in private hands. If the Government think it is criminal to squat, they should also think it is criminal to leave properties empty, denying them to society year after year. What are the Government doing to ensure that the scandal of all those empty homes comes to an end?

I challenge the fact that this clause is still needed, but it is before us. These modest amendments try to make the position clearer and a little more just. I beg to move.

I am grateful to my noble friend. I suspect that that is as far as we can go this evening. I have to say on the record that if I find that the agreement does not hold, I shall have to consider my position very carefully.

I still want to put on record the point that I was about to make because it is very pertinent. The Government should not be under any illusion that local authorities will be in a position to help those who present themselves to them as homeless. I quote from the Crisis report:

"Most are also recognised as homeless by the LA (78 per cent) but few are entitled to accommodation under the terms of the homelessness legislation, typically because they are not considered 'priority need', or are deemed 'intentionally homeless'".

That leaves thousands of young and middle-aged people in this country potentially being criminalised. We have not heard what measures the Government will put in place tonight to mitigate that. I am in some doubt as to whether we will be able to return to this issue, but I am sure that when the House reads this debate it will be the will of the House that we return to it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 157A withdrawn.

Amendments 157B to 157E not moved.

Amendment 157F

Moved by Lord McNally

157F: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause-

"Scrap metal dealing: increase in penalties for existing offences

(1) The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 is amended as follows.

(2) For the following words (which have effect as references to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale) substitute in each case "a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale"-

(a) in section 1(7) (dealer failing to register) the words from "a fine" to the end;

(b) in section 2(6) (dealer failing to record dealings) the words from "a fine" to the end;

(c) in section 3(4) (itinerant collector failing to keep receipts) the words from "a fine" to the end;

(d) in section 4(4) (convicted dealer failing to meet additional requirements) the same words before "and the court".

(3) For the following words (which have effect as references to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale) substitute in each case "a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale"-

(a) in section 1(8) (dealer failing to give notice of cessation of business) the words from "a fine" to the end;

(b) in section 5(1) (dealer acquiring metal from a person under 16) the same words before the proviso;

(c) in section 5(2) (selling metal to a dealer under a false name or address) the words from "a fine" to the end;

(d) in section 6(5) (obstructing entry and inspection) the words from "a fine" to the end."

Amendment 157F agreed.

Amendment 157G

Moved by Lord McNally

157G: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause-

"Offence of buying scrap metal for cash etc

(1) The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 3 insert-

"3A Offence of buying scrap metal for cash etc

(1) A scrap metal dealer must not pay for scrap metal except-

(a) by a cheque which under section 81A of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 is not transferable, or

(b) by an electronic transfer of funds (authorised by credit or debit card or otherwise).

(2) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) to permit other methods of payment.

(3) In this section paying includes paying in kind (with goods or services).

(4) If a scrap metal dealer pays for scrap metal in breach of subsection (1), each of the following is guilty of an offence-

(a) the scrap metal dealer;

(b) a person who makes the payment acting for the dealer;

(c) a manager who fails to take reasonable steps to prevent the payment being made in breach of subsection (1).

(5) In subsection (4)(c) "manager" means a person who works in the carrying on of the dealer's business as a scrap metal dealer in a capacity, whether paid or unpaid, which authorises the person to prevent the payment being made in breach of subsection (1).

(6) Subsection (1) does not apply if-

(a) the payment is made in the carrying on of the dealer's business as a scrap metal dealer as part of the business of an itinerant collector, and

(b) at the time of the payment an order under section 3(1) is in force in relation to the dealer.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(8) An order under subsection (2) is to be made by statutory instrument.

(9) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."

(3) Section 2 (records of dealings) is amended as follows.

(4) After subsection (2)(d) insert-

"(da) where paragraph (d) applies, any part of the price that is unpaid at the time when the entry is to be made;".

(5) In subsection (2)(e) for "the last preceding paragraph" substitute "paragraph (d)".

(6) After subsection (4) insert-

"(4A) If a scrap metal dealer pays at any time for scrap metal falling within subsection (1)(a)-

(a) the dealer must keep, with the book containing the entry relating to receipt of the scrap metal, a copy of the cheque (if the payment was by cheque), or any receipt identifying the transfer (if the payment was by electronic transfer and such a receipt was obtained), and

(b) the particulars required by this section to be entered include those listed in subsection (4B).

(4B) The particulars are-

(a) the full name and address of any person who makes the payment acting for the dealer;

(b) the full name and address of the person to whom the payment is made;

(c) in the case of an electronic transfer where no receipt identifying the transfer was obtained, particulars identifying the transfer.

(4C) Anything kept by virtue of subsection (4A)(a) must be marked so as to identify the scrap metal by reference to the entry relating to receipt of the metal.

(4D) An entry in pursuance of subsection (4A)(b)-

(a) must be made immediately after the payment is made, and

(b) if not made at the same time as the entry relating to receipt of the scrap metal, must identify the metal by reference to that entry."

(7) In subsection (5), after "this section and" insert "the book and anything required by subsection (4A)(a) to be kept with it".

(8) Section 3 (special provisions as to records in certain cases) is amended as follows.

(9) In subsection (5)(d), for "subsection (4)" substitute "subsections (4) and (4D)(a)".

(10) In subsection (6)(a)-

(a) after "books" insert ", and the obligation imposed by subsection (4A)(a) of that section to keep anything with a book,";

(b) after "the like particulars" insert ", and to keeping the same things,";

(c) for "and (3)" substitute ", (3) and (4A) to (4D)".

(11) In subsection (6)(c), for "subsection (4)" substitute "subsections (4) and (4D)(a)".

(12) In section 4(1) (power for court to impose additional requirements on convicted dealers)-

(a) omit "or" at the end of paragraph (a), and

(b) after that paragraph insert-

"(aa) is convicted of an offence under section 3A, or".

(13) Section 6 (rights of entry and inspection) is amended as follows.

(14) After subsection (3) insert-

"(3A) Whether or not a place is one to which a constable has a right of entry in accordance with subsection (1), a justice of the peace may issue a warrant described in subsection (3B) if satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the place-

(a) is a scrap metal store where scrap metal paid for contrary to section 3A is or has been received or kept, or

(b) is a place to which admission is reasonably required in order to ascertain whether that section is being complied with.

(3B) The warrant is a warrant signed by the justice issuing it which specifies the place concerned and authorises a constable to enter the place, if need be by force, at any time within one month from the date of the warrant.

(3C) A constable authorised to enter a place by a warrant granted under subsection (3A) has a right-

(a) to inspect that place;

(b) to require production of, and to inspect, any scrap metal kept at that place;

(c) to require production of and to inspect any book which the dealer is required by this Act to keep at that place and any copy or receipt required to be kept with the book, or, as the case may be, any receipt which the dealer is required to keep as mentioned in section 3(1)(b), and to take copies of the book, copy or receipt;

(d) to require production of and to inspect any other record kept at that place relating to payment for scrap metal, and to take copies of the record."

(15) In subsection (4) for "the last preceding subsection" substitute "subsection (3) or (3A)"."

Amendment 157H (to Amendment 157G) not moved.

Amendment 157G agreed.

Amendment 157J

Moved by Lord McNally

157J: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause-

"Review of offence of buying scrap metal for cash etc

(1) Before the end of 5 years beginning with the day on which section (Offence of buying scrap metal for cash etc)(2) comes into force, the Secretary of State must-

(a) carry out a review of the offence created by that subsection, and

(b) publish a report of the conclusions of the review.

(2) The report must in particular-

(a) set out the objectives intended to be achieved by creating the offence,

(b) assess the extent to which those objectives have been achieved, and

(c) assess whether it is appropriate to retain the offence to achieve those objectives."

Amendment 157J agreed.

Amendment 158 had been retabled as Amendment 156D.

Clause 138 : Power to make consequential and supplementary provision etc

Amendment 159

Moved by Lord McNally

159: Clause 138, page 123, line 23, at beginning insert "this Act or"

I would be pleased to ask her again, because it is very important before I make a decision on what to do with this amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the fact that it is still open. Therefore, it is free for me to bring the matter back before your Lordships at Third Reading.

Can she give me an assurance that it will be possible to come back on this at Third Reading on the basis of that? Can the Minister clarify what she is saying? She says that she has a list of other measures, but we will not know what they are this evening because she is not reading them out. We will need to know what they are before we decide what to do. She will need to go through the list.

I am grateful to the Minister for that suggestion. Is she saying that the issue is still live and can therefore come back on Third Reading?

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have not only stayed but spoken so passionately that it makes up in quality for what we did not have in numbers. Several other noble Lords who were not able to stay have expressed their sadness about that. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, spoke extremely powerfully. In one way I am glad she was not able to speak in Committee because it gave us the chance to hear some of the arguments lying at the very basis of this issue. It is important to remember, as she outlined, that this is about homeless people. I was disappointed by the Minister's reply when she kept emphasising the occupation of someone else's residence or home. These are not residences or homes, by and large; they are simply empty properties. This is the basis of the misunderstanding and it is what I have tried to get to the bottom of.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for his support and to my noble friend Lady Hamwee who, as always, asked some very incisive questions, some of which I do not feel were fully answered tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, is quite right when he says that I took his advice on extending the six months suggested by Crisis to 12 months, because that puts it beyond doubt that the property is empty. In fact, there are definitions, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, of an empty property, and my amendment is more modest than those.

I have not heard anything new from the Minister tonight about the transition measures. She mentioned that local authorities would be approached by those being criminalised, but I wonder whether she is aware-

My Lords, I am sure that the House will find it convenient if we discuss all the amendments relating to Clause 136 in one group and, therefore, I intend to regroup them. I am sure that your Lordships will not need reminding that this matter was not discussed at all in Committee in the Commons and was discussed very late at night in your Lordships' House, although it was not at a quarter to midnight.

Even given your Lordships' stamina, I do not think that this is any way in which to deal with a major point of principle. It is no accident that squatting in an empty property has never before been criminalised in the UK. In its historic context, it has been seen as a humane response to the homeless seeking shelter. Any big change deserves more scrutiny than it has so far had in its entire passage through Parliament. Even though the hour is late, I hope that we will discuss the principle and, should Parliament decide on the principle that the Government are asking for, some of the practical measures that need to be further considered. That is what my amendments seek to address.

This is a cross-departmental matter. It will involve the Home Office because the police will have to spend a lot more time and resources. It will involve the Department for Communities and Local Government because local authorities will be involved in rehousing tens of thousands of people who will be made homeless. The MoJ will be involved because of all the people who will end up being criminalised. In addition, there is the entire housing issue, and I am sure that your Lordships will join me in wishing that this had come as part of a housing Bill.

We need to talk about a lot of issues, but I will turn directly to the practicality of my amendments. Amendment 157A was suggested by the charity for the homeless, Crisis. This is an issue about homelessness. If a building has been empty for more than 12 months, someone squatting in it should not be criminalised. I spoke to that issue at greater length in Committee, so I will leave it at that for now.

Amendments 157B and 157C deal with "residential". The Bill defines "residential" very loosely. If a garage had a bed in it, even someone wandering into it and lying on that bed could criminalise themselves by that action. The drafting of the definition of residential is far too wide, and we should think about it.

Amendment 157D deals with the even more worrying issue of retrospectivity. No one knows exactly-I have asked Written Questions on this and the Government have admitted that they do not know-but there could be up to 50,000 or 60,000 people squatting at the moment. If they are all criminalised overnight, what will they do? Will they present themselves as homeless to local authorities? That is what retrospectivity means here. They will not have a choice: they will either have to stay where they are and risk becoming criminalised or they will have to present themselves as homeless, and that has tremendous implications.

I am grateful to the Minister and his colleague, Crispin Blunt, who talked through transition measures with me, but there is an awful lot more we need to discuss with regard to this. I cannot think of a single local authority which would be in a position at the moment to deal with anything like 200 homeless people presenting themselves on its doorstep, let alone thousands. This is a big issue which needs further discussion. As I have said, it obviously has cross-departmental implications.

In fact, it is practicality which worries me most. The Government could choose to bring this measure in over a considerably longer period because we cannot solve the problem extremely quickly. I am sure that in their hearts the Government do not want to criminalise a section of the population who, very often through no fault of their own, are homeless. The clause is about squatters, but if you described them as "vulnerable homeless", most people's reaction would be different. I know the debate in the press and in political circles has been coloured by perhaps a dozen cases that the press have quoted, but I remind your Lordships that they were of squatters who went into someone's home and that people's homes are already protected in legislation. There are thousands of people out there who are in empty properties because they are homeless and seeking shelter. The Government need to give further thought to how they are going to deal with so many people presenting themselves as homeless. I beg to move.

My Lords, for those of us lucky enough to have gardens or allotments, the incentive to compost is obviously much greater, but what incentive does the Minister offer to households without either of those to separate out their food waste?

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the Director of Public Prosecutions's comments on protests, they will define "face-coverings" in legislation.

To ask Her Majesty's Government for what actions, including actions which were not, or were not intended to be, criminal, a person would be classified a "domestic extremist" and so qualify to appear on the police database of domestic extremists.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they are making in appointing a chief coroner.