Orders of the Day — Criminal Law (Amendment) (Householder Protection) Bill

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 9:34 am on 4 February 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Patrick Mercer Patrick Mercer Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), Home Affairs 9:34, 4 February 2005

The second amendment is simple. Far too many people are arrested, charged and tried as a result of violence against an intruder in the home or in a shop. Far too many people go in front of a jury and a judge and are told, "You are as innocent as the day you were born. You have not contravened the law. Get out of my court. You're wasting my time." That sounds like justice. It sounds like someone being accused and found innocent. The fact remains that that length of time— in Charlie Mayall's case, six months—is a period of enormous stress, trauma, loss of earnings, break-up of families and all sorts of other pressures on individuals. That must be wrong.

In the second amendment to the Bill, we would make the judgment about those who come in front of a court the business purely and simply of the Attorney-General. Only on his say-so would someone come up in court. This is a powerful point. Too many people suffer needlessly at the hands of the Crown Prosecution Service.

The Bill is not designed to be party political. A cursory glance at the names of its supporters will reveal that Members of all parties have signed up to it. Dr. Taylor, a respected general practitioner, wrote to me yesterday:

"This is not merely a Tory political Bill. It is a genuine cry from confused people represented by MPs of all parties who want some clear answers."

The hon. Gentleman has no axe to grind. He does not support any of the major parties in the House, yet his voice is clear and I find his view compelling.

Sadly, others have chosen to confuse the issue. On 8 December in the Chamber, the Prime Minister seemed to be supporting the Bill. On Wednesday, however, he had done a complete U-turn. He told us—as a result of pressure, no doubt, from his new Home Secretary—that the law was clear. He reminds me of a character from "Little Britain"—the Vicky Pollard of Westminster: "Yeah but no but yeah but no". Where is the Prime Minister coming from? Is he, like the Home Secretary, flying in the face of public opinion? Is he responsible, with the Home Secretary, for the shameless buffeting of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner? If this were a Labour private Member's Bill, I have no doubt that it would go through without opposition, on the nod, for the common sense that it is. The Bill stands above party politics—[Interruption.]