4.3 pm
Criminal Law (Amendment) (Householder Protection) Bill
5:00 pm
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I remember it well. That Act’s definition of building would include commercial premises and other premises, such as clubs, nightclubs and so on. I hope that that helps. I assume that it would depend on whether the bouncer was inside or outside the building, but the bouncer would certainly not be a householder seeking to protect his property and his family and children, which is the essence of what the hon. Member for Newark seeks. However, I point out again that what he pursues will produce anomalies and will not necessarily get him what he wishes.
I was explaining that security guards in commercial premises could use the Bill to justify their actions, but that security guards on the high street who were attacked by people using exactly the same force would not be able to use the Bill’s provisions in their defence because they would not be in a building. That is another anomaly.
Similarly, the Bill would apply a different test to persons who were in a building as trespassers—perhaps as squatters, as my hon. Friend mentioned. As constituency Members of Parliament, we often hear of drug addicts taking over buildings in order to have somewhere sheltered to trade and use their drugs. As they would be trespassing, the new test would apply only if one squatter used force against another in a fight over money or drugs. However, the new test would not apply if a member of the public used force in fighting off an attack by one of squatters on the pavement outside the building. Yes, one squatter fighting off another squatter in the same building could use the Bill; but a decent, law-abiding member of the community outside the building who was being attacked by the same squatter could not. The Bill would not help him.
I am pointing out again—perhaps rather painfully, Mr. Cook, as I see from the expression on your face—the anomalies that the Bill would introduce. In all my dealings with the hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt that his objective is sincere, but he must reflect on the anomalies. We will have the opportunity shortly to hear from him.
The amendments tabled by my hon. Friends would ensure that the new test of not grossly disproportionate force would apply to those in occupation of a building, permanently or temporarily, as a residence. For the sake of clarity they apply to any dwelling—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North made it clear, that would include caravans, boats and so on. We have debated the word “building” a lot this afternoon. As it is used at the moment, however, it would not include a boat or a caravan.
Once again, we see inconsistencies in the Bill. It would cover householders in some situations but not others, despite the fact that some structures are used as homes for some of the most vulnerable in society. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to people sleeping rough in cars, but the Bill would not protect them. My hon. Friend sought some clarity on where outside the home people could use the provisions of the Bill to their advantage.
The ambit of the provision will be limited by the amendments to all residences, including holiday or other residences, and any other property occupied as a residence. That may be an important consideration, given second home ownership and the use of holiday homes, caravans and so on.
The amendments would ensure that references to houses would cover gardens or other grounds belonging to them—whether or not they had hot tubs, they would all be included. It would be odd if the new test were to apply when the burglar was in the kitchen, but not if he was stealing from the garden or threatening a child or a partner in the garden. That is what the text of the Bill would provide at the moment. If the hon. Member for Newark believes in householders’ rights, then surely he would want to extend his provisions to include gardens, garages and garden sheds—structures that may form part of the property.
The final amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North would ensure for the avoidance of doubt that a person cannot be regarded as occupying a house if that occupation arises from the fact that he is trespassing. As I pointed out, the Bill applies the new test that the person who uses the force does not need to be the owner, nor even a legitimate resident. My hon. Friend seeks to clarify that.
The amendments limit the application of the offence. They would make it apply only to householders and not, for instance, to a security guard who found a potential thief attempting to enter a warehouse or other private premises—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North observed earlier this afternoon and on Second Reading. It would also not apply to anyone who was in someone else’s house—for instance someone who was visiting friends or who was house-sitting while their friends were away on holiday.
In our view, those examples show the fundamental problem with the Bill. Why should the law distinguish between the amount of force that I may use in my house and the amount of force that the hon. Member for Newark may use in my house to defend me if I was being assailed or my house was being invaded? The same test should apply. It is a question of what is reasonable in the circumstances, not whether it is my house or his house, or whether we are inside or outside. Wherever one is, the only test is the reasonable force test.
You have been very patient, Mr. Cook, as has the Committee. I have tried to respond as much as I can. I hope that my comments on what I regard as positive amendments have not given the impression that I agree in any way with the fundamental approach of the Bill. It ought to be clear—it will certainly become clear in other debates—that I remain utterly opposed to the Bill. However, I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member for Newark has to say.