Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 24—Power to increase certain other fines on conviction by magistrates’ court.

Government new clause 25—Power to amend standard scale of fines for summary offences.

[Mr Blunt]

The new clauses are designed to remove the upper limits on the fines that can currently be imposed in magistrates courts. Raising the upper limits on fines gives sentencers greater flexibility to identify the most effective punishment appropriate to the offences and offenders before them, particularly when combined with other disposals such as suspended sentences when offenders are close to the custodial threshold.

The Government believe that financial penalties, as long as they are set at the right level, can be just as effective as community payback or curfews in punishing offenders and deterring them from further offending. Fines hit offenders where it hurts: in their pockets. They also have the advantage of not affecting opportunities for employment or having an impact on family responsibilities, and hence can prevent further acceleration into a criminal lifestyle. Moreover, they do not impose a further burden on the already hard-pressed taxpayer or on society as a whole. Not only are fines punitive; they provide reparation for society, and serve as part of offenders’ restoration to all of us.

That is why courts already have flexibility to impose fines in cases that have passed the community sentence threshold. It is entirely right for them to be able to consider the circumstances of the offences and of the offenders before them, and, having weighed up the various purposes of sentencing, to decide that a fine will provide an appropriate level of punishment and deterrence without needing to consider a community order. Courts already have wide discretion to make use of fines in appropriate cases, and the Government want to support and encourage that.

We particularly wish to ensure that magistrates, who issue the vast majority of fines, have the powers that they need to set fines at levels that are proportionate to the most serious offences that come before them for trial. These clauses therefore make two key changes to the way that fines operate in the magistrates courts. The first is to replace all upper limits of £5,000 or more for fines available on summary conviction. At the moment, where an offence is triable on summary conviction only, magistrates do not have the option of committing the case to the Crown court for sentence and are constrained in their ability to fine by the statutory maximum fines. For the most serious offences tried by magistrates, that is generally £5,000, although for certain offences where the financial gain from offending is substantial—for example, in some environmental offences—the maximum fine can be as high as £50,000.

For less serious offences, we believe that it is right to retain the differentials between the punishments. However, we wish to give Government and Parliament more flexibility to amend these maxima as the need arises.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Blunt]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I need to conclude my remarks and allow the Opposition to respond.

The second change these clauses propose is to give the Secretary of State a power to increase the current maximum fine amounts for levels 1 to 4 on the standard scale of fines for summary offences. These amounts are currently £200, £500, £1,000 and £2,500. The new power would be to increase these so as to keep them in the same ratio to one another as at present. There is already a similar power to change them in line with changes in the value of money, so the new power would be an extension of that. We intend to consult on the right level at which to set these new maxima.

That should form part of a wider review of sentences served in the community, so I want to use this debate to notify the House that we are entering a review process, which we intend will in due course lead to a formal public consultation on community sentences. For too long, community sentences have failed to punish offenders properly for their actions, and the Government are committed to changing that. We are already taking action, including through this Bill, to strengthen community orders, but we want to go much further and deliver a step change in the way sentences operate. They must, of course, address the problems that have caused the offending behaviour in the first place—the drug abuse, the alcoholism, the mental health problems—but they must also punish properly and send a clear message to society that wrongdoing will not be tolerated. We want to see a clear punitive element in every sentence handed out by the courts.

We will consult on further reforms to ensure that community sentences effectively punish and rehabilitate offenders. That should include consulting on what constitutes effective delivery of the principles of sentencing, punishment and rehabilitation, as I have mentioned, but also on protection of the public, restoration and how the whole package can produce the most effective deterrent to crime. A part of this consultation will be on the new maxima at levels 1 to 4 in the magistrates courts.

The Government want offenders to be in no doubt that the courts have the powers they need to punish their crimes. Once the victim’s compensation has been addressed—and if an offence presents no wider issues of reparation or public protection—if a court believes that a fine would be the best way of punishing an offender and deterring future offending, then we want to ensure that there are no barriers to courts setting the fine at the appropriate level.

To sum up, these new clauses would remove the £5,000 cap on fines that magistrates can impose, so that they are able to use their discretion and set fines that are proportionate to the offences before them. That will also improve the efficiency of the court system, by removing the need for magistrates to send cases to the Crown court when they feel the current maximum fine is not a severe enough punishment for the offenders before them. For offences with caps set at less than £5,000, we propose to retain the current structure of differential maxima, with a power to increase them as necessary.

I urge Members to support the measures.

[Mr Slaughter]

I thank the Minister for his clear account of the effects of these proposals, but I wonder why they are being introduced at this stage. He may wish to explain that. They are not controversial. We do not intend to oppose them as we think their measures are sensible, and we are glad that the Government are, for once, in favour of judicial discretion. They made certain concessions in Committee, one of which was not withdrawing magistrates’ powers to impose longer custodial sentences. We believe the magistrates system serves this country extremely well—this year marks its 650th anniversary. However, although these are sensible changes to current magistrates powers, we are concerned about the fact that, once again, they are part of a package of new measures.

I will not take up any more of the House’s time as we shall shortly come on to discuss two very important and significant new provisions in the criminal law, of which we have had very little notice as they have been introduced at a very late stage. I therefore simply ask again why we have had to wait until Report stage for the measures currently under discussion to be introduced. We do not oppose the proposals, however, as we consider them to be sensible and uncontentious.

[Gareth Johnson]

Although I support the Government’s proposals, it would make sense to remove the upper limit on financial penalties imposed by magistrates courts. The proposals do not relate to levels of compensation, so if magistrates are asked to sentence for, say, a theft of £5,000-worth of goods, they will still have to refer the matter to the Crown court for sentence if they do not have the power to award more than £5,000 compensation. I therefore wonder whether the Government would be willing to look at the levels of compensation in the future, to see if there is any scope for lifting the upper limit of compensation awards that magistrates courts can impose.

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to have this brief opportunity to respond to the points raised. Let me see if I can do justice to the grudging support of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). I am certainly profoundly grateful that we found him in a positive mood, and the fact that he welcomes these measures gives the answer to his questions. They are appropriate measures; that is why they are being welcomed across the House.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) is absolutely right that many defendants consider a proper combination of community sentences to be much more onerous than custody—and I want to increase the opportunities for that to be seen as much more onerous than custody. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is not present, but I remember him citing an example from the Daily Mail about a judge who threw the book at an offender because he thought he could not send him to prison: he gave the offender a combination of community sentences that were much more onerous than the custody would have been.

We want to get to a place where we can get a better balance on sentencing, to make sure that we actually punish people in the most appropriate way and give sentences greater flexibility. That is what this measure will do. I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who made an entirely proper point. I want to make it absolutely clear that compensation comes first—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before we embark on the next debate, may I draw attention to Mr Speaker’s request, made earlier this afternoon, for brevity from the Front Benchers and Back Benchers in these debates so that all the important matters before the House for decision today can be properly considered?

New Clause 27

Reasonable force for the purposes of self-defence etc

‘(1) Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (reasonable force for the purposes of self-defence etc) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) after paragraph (a) omit “and” and insert—

“(aa) the common law defence of defence of property; and”.

(3) After subsection (6) insert—

“(6A) In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3), a possibility that D could have retreated is to be considered (so far as relevant) as a factor to be taken into account, rather than as giving rise to a duty to retreat.”

(4) In subsection (8) for “Subsection (7) is” substitute “Subsections (6A) and (7) are”.

(5) In subsection (10)(a) after sub-paragraph (i) omit “or” and insert—

(ia) the purpose of defence of property under the common law, or”.’.—(Mr Blunt.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Blunt]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 136 and 141.

[Mr Blunt]

I shall certainly be following Mr Speaker’s direction, and I hope that we will dispose of this matter in as short an order as we disposed of removing the limit on magistrates’ fines.

The question of how far one can go to defend oneself crops up again and again in the letters Members of Parliament receive from their constituents, and of course it is always a controversial issue in the press and the media. It usually arises because a hard-working, law-abiding home owner or shopkeeper has been forced to defend themselves against an intruder and has ended up being arrested for it. Being confronted by an assailant in one’s home, on the street or anywhere else can be a terrifying prospect. It is essential that the law in this area is clear, so that people who use reasonable force to defend themselves or to protect their properties can be confident that the law is on their side.

There will always be occasions when the police need to make an arrest to enable a prompt and effective investigation, especially if they turn up at an address and somebody is dead. We are working with the Home Office on new guidance for the police to ensure that arrests are made only where necessary, but these provisions should give people greater certainty that the law itself is on their side and they will not be prosecuted or convicted if they have only used reasonable force.

[Mr Llwyd]

Will the Minister advise the House how the provisions change the common law doctrine and principle of a person being able to protect his or her property using force and the doctrine of self-defence, where reasonable force is used to defend oneself? I asked the Lord Chancellor that yesterday and he told me to wait until today for the answer—I am all ears.

[Mr Blunt]

The right hon. Gentleman should listen out for the next passage of my remarks, as I hope it will give him and the rest of the House satisfaction.

On the specific provisions, the new clause is not designed to sweep away the fundamental premise that somebody can use reasonable force in self-defence. In my view, that aspect of the law is entirely sensible. Allowing somebody to use unreasonable or disproportionate force would be very dangerous indeed, as it would effectively sanction vigilantism or violent retribution. Instead our proposals are designed to clarify what “reasonable” force means in practice. The new clause will amend section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to make it clear that a person can use reasonable force to defend property in addition to defending themselves, other people or preventing crime, and that they are under no duty to retreat from an offender when acting for a legitimate purpose, although if they had a chance to retreat, the court may still consider it when deciding whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. We did not consult on these measures because of the limited nature of the amendments, but that should not detract from their importance in reassuring householders and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves and their properties that the law is on their side.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not accept that the law works perfectly well as it is? Some years ago, I defended someone who had chopped off someone’s ear with a samurai sword and the jury acquitted him, saying that he had used reasonable force in the circumstances.

[Mr Blunt]

I cannot comment on that individual case—[Interruption.] The shadow Justice Secretary tempts me down that road, but I will resist. The much clearer message that will be sent if the House chooses to accept the Government’s proposals will mean that the position should be crystal clear to householders and shopkeepers on the force that they are entitled to use. That is the purpose of these provisions. We are seeking to reassure the public, and this all sits as part of our desire to have a society that can exercise its rights and properly defend those rights, and that does not feel that people have to pass by on the other side, particularly when their lives and property are at risk.

[Mr Llwyd]

May I suggest to the Minister that legislating is not all about giving out signals and that it is about making law? I have no axe to grind personally with the Minister, who is a perfectly decent man and who engaged with us in Committee on many matters, above and beyond his brief. However, he may have wished to circulate a photocopy of the Crown Prosecution Service guidance on self-defence and the prevention of crime. Any fool can read and understand it, as it says simply, under the heading of “Reasonable Force”:

“A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of: self-defence; or defence of another; or defence of property”.

It goes on to describe a further two matters. Providing a copy of that would have done, rather than using legislative time.

[Mr Blunt]

I am very grateful—[Interruption.] I am not embarrassed in the least. This measure forms part of the coalition agreement. We are delivering on that, sending a clear message and putting the law beyond doubt. Having things buried away in guidance to prosecutors, given that reassurance is needed for home owners and shopkeepers, is a distinctly sub-optimal way of proceeding on an issue such as this. When viewed in conjunction with the Home Secretary’s plans to strengthen the code of arrest for the police, we hope that these measures will help to fulfil the commitments in the coalition agreement on this issue. We must take together the instructions to Crown prosecutors, the legislation that I hope will go on to the statute book as a result of these Government measures and that code of arrest for the police, and I can therefore happily commend these proposals to the House.

[Sadiq Khan]

First, may I say, for the avoidance of doubt, that Labour Members do not intend to oppose new clause 27 or the consequential amendments, even though it is simply a rehash of an existing law and this valuable parliamentary time could have been used to discuss contentious issues that have caused real concern for many of our constituents? It was the previous Government, through section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, who placed the common law of self-defence into statute.

Since that time, there have been a number of calls, especially from those on the right, to “tighten” the laws on self-defence because they think that is good politics. Back in February 2010, the Prime Minister argued that the law needed further tightening to benefit the home owner against the burglar. Indeed, the Conservative party manifesto said that it would

“give householders greater legal protection if they have to defend themselves against intruders in their homes.”

The Conservatives have floated on a number of occasions the issue of reasonable force and changing the law to allow anything other than actions that are grossly disproportionate. Back in December 2009, the shadow Home Secretary, now Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) committed a future Conservative Home Secretary to changing the law so that convictions against householders would happen only in cases where the actions involved were “grossly disproportionate.” But despite all the spin, that change has not materialised. The new clause will not allow home owners to use grossly disproportionate force or disproportionate force. It will not even strengthen the law. That is because expert opinion and evidence on the issue of self-defence for home owners is pretty unanimous.

It is widely accepted by those at the coal face that the law on self-defence works pretty well and it is unclear in many quarters why the law would need strengthening. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, has said:

“There are many cases, some involving death, where no prosecutions are brought. We would only ever bring a prosecution where we thought that the degree of force was unreasonable in such a way that the jury would realistically convict. So these are very rare cases and history tells us that the current test works very well.”

That approach is further reinforced by what has happened in recent months. That is why the Minister, whom we all like, is embarrassed by having to move the new clause and why his right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary, whom we all love, has disappeared from the Chamber. Recent cases involving home owners such as Vincent Cooke in Cheshire, Peter Flanagan in Salford and Cecil Coley in Old Trafford, in which intruders were killed, have demonstrated that when reasonable force is deemed to have been used, the Crown Prosecution Service has not brought any charges, so the current law works. I see that a note is desperately being passed to the Minister—it is probably a sick note from the Justice Secretary.

Paul Mendelle QC, a previous chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said:

“The law should always encourage people to be reasonable, not unreasonable; to be proportionate, not disproportionate.”

He went on to add that the current law worked perfectly well and was well understood by juries. Just yesterday he argued in The Guardian that the two areas of change proposed by the Government are nothing of the sort. By amending section 76 of the 2008 Act so that there is no duty to retreat before force they are restating the current law. I think it is called rearranging the furniture: things might look different, but nothing of substance will have changed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, and I suppose that that is right, but I come back to my earlier point that the whole process is otiose. I understand what he is saying, and he has logic on his side. We talk about logic, but parliamentary time is short. Yesterday we had to leave out consideration of a raft of important matters relating to social welfare and social justice. None of them was discussed. Yet we have time this evening to talk about something that is unnecessary. So although I respectfully disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, he has logic on his side. However, the new clause is not the right vehicle for clarification of the law.

Quite why the measure is being introduced now is rather baffling. I can only presume that it is to please the tabloids and that this Government, like the last, want to convince voters that they are not soft on crime. Those on the right of the Justice Secretary’s party have made clear their aspirations to amend the law on reasonable force for some time now. As far back as 2009, the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), said that any future Conservative Government would push for prosecutions, and convictions, only where courts judged that the action taken had been “grossly disproportionate”. That would have stood the law on its head. A huge amount of jurisprudence would have emanated from that decision. No doubt the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and I would have profited from it, but it would have been a bad step in my view. The Conservative party wound back somewhat after that was said.

I am glad that such an extraordinary change to the law has not occurred, at least not yet. As Michael Wolkind QC, who represented Tony Martin, who was found guilty of murder and wounding with intent under the existing law, has said, allowing householders to use force that is not “grossly disproportionate” would amount to “state-sponsored revenge”.

Indeed, an outsider looking in might be forgiven for suspecting that hundreds of people were being prosecuted every year under the current law. But an informal trawl by the CPS suggested that between 1990 and 2005 there were only 11 prosecutions of people who had used force against intruders in houses, commercial premises or private land. So that is what we are dealing with and it leads one to question why we are talking about it tonight.

As the chair of the Bar Council Paul Mendelle QC said—it has been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), but it will stand repetition—

“The law should always encourage people to be reasonable, not unreasonable; to be proportionate, not disproportionate.”

Paul Mendelle also commented in the same article written in The Times that the present law worked well and was well understood by juries. Again, I ask why we are doing this.

Changes to the law should not be brought about to produce good sound bites. The common law of self-defence already makes it perfectly clear that a householder is able to use reasonable force against an intruder in defence of himself or herself or his or her property. Amending the existing law for no gain in matters of substance will serve only to increase vigilantism and is not a good use of parliamentary time. It could lead to people using excessive force because they think they might be above the law—“An Englishman’s home is his castle” and all that kind of thing. I do not know. It might give out all the wrong signs, not the signs that Ministers on the Treasury Bench hope and suspect they are giving out.

I believe that the new clause has more to do with internal party politics than with policy. We are using valuable parliamentary time to play this out. The amendment is otiose and serves only to play to the drum beat of the tabloid press. I have a lot of time for the Justice Secretary, who is a man of great integrity, but I fear that in introducing the new clause he is dancing to the tune of the tabloids.

[Mr Blunt]

I will turn to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) towards the end of my speech, but first let me say how grateful I am to the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) for his kind personal remarks. I was marginally upset that I did not leap the amorous threshold that my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary did, but I am grateful for the limited extent of his affection compared to that for my right hon. and learned Friend.

I was amazed at the chutzpah of the right hon. Member for Tooting in lecturing the Government about a public relations stunt and spin. It took me a moment to pick my jaw back up off the Bench as I listened to him. There is a clear answer to the right hon. Gentleman. He properly stood up for the legal system as it now sits. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) said, it is an inconsistent message if we have changed section 76 of the Criminal Justice Act but have not applied it to property, so let us make the position absolutely clear to everyone that not only in the code for crown prosecutors and in the common law but in statute law, as passed by the House, property is included. That is a clear reason for making this change.

The right hon. Gentleman said that presumably the change was for an audience outside the Chamber. Yes, it is. It is all very well for sophisticates such as us, who understand the word “otiose”—used by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)—but the issue goes right to people’s hearts. They feel that they are entitled to defend their home or their shop, and we owe it to them to make it crystal clear that we absolutely support them in defending themselves, their families and their property. The proposals make that absolutely clear. We need to understand that when something is so central to how everybody feels about their home, shop or place of business we must send a clear signal from this place about whose side we are on.

[Sadiq Khan]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s flow, but I have a simple question. Once the law is on the statute book, will a home owner have more rights, fewer rights or the same rights as they have now?

[Mr Blunt]

The home owner will have much greater reassurance about exercising their rights. [Interruption.] It is all for well for the lawyers on the Opposition Benches to cackle and say that the provision will not make any strict legal difference; it makes a profound difference in the reassurance that people will feel about operating in defence of their property and their life, which is why I am happy to commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26

Offence of squatting in a residential building

‘(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person is in a residential building as a trespasser having entered it as a trespasser,

(b) the person knows or ought to know that he or she is a trespasser, and

(c) the person is living in the building or intends to live there for any period.

(2) The offence is not committed by a person holding over after the end of a lease or licence (even if the person leaves and re-enters the building).

(3) For the purposes of this section—

(a) “building” includes any structure or part of a structure (including a temporary or moveable structure), and

(b) a building is “residential” if it is designed or adapted, before the time of entry, for use as a place to live.

(4) For the purposes of this section the fact that a person derives title from a trespasser, or has the permission of a trespasser, does not prevent the person from being a trespasser.

(5) A person convicted of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).

(6) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in subsection (5) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) it is irrelevant whether the person entered the building as a trespasser before or after the commencement of this section.’.—(Mr Blunt.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Blunt]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment (a) to new clause 26, line 7, at end insert—

‘(2A) The offence is not committed where the building has been empty for six months or more and where there are no significant steps being taken to refurbish, let or sell the building at the time of the trespass.’.

Amendment (c) to new clause 26, line 22 leave out subsection (7) and insert—

‘(7) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) no offence is committed if the person initially entered the building as a trespasser before the commencement of this section.’.

Government amendment 140

[Mr Blunt]

The Government are very concerned about the harm that squatters can cause. Residential and non-residential property owners have contacted Ministers repeatedly about the appalling impact that squatting can have on their homes and businesses. These are not media scare stories; they are very real and stressful events for victims whose properties have been occupied.

It is not just a question of the cost, length of time and incredible hassle involved in evicting squatters. Properties can be left in a terrible state after the squatters have been evicted and owners may face hefty cleaning and repair bills. While the property owner is literally left picking up the pieces, the squatters have gone on their merry way. They might even be squatting in somebody else’s property.

The current law already offers some protection to both non-residential and residential property owners. Squatters may be guilty, in certain circumstances, of offences such as criminal damage and burglary. There is also an offence under section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 that protects certain residential property owners. It applies when a trespasser fails to leave residential premises on being required to do so by or on behalf of a “displaced residential occupier” or a “protected intending occupier.” This means that people who have effectively been made homeless by squatters can ask the trespasser to leave, and if the trespasser refuses to leave, they can report an offence to the police.

We do not think the existing legal framework goes far enough to tackle the problems I have just described. The offence under section 7 of the 1977 Act does not protect non-residential property owners or many residential property owners, including landlords, local authorities and second home owners, who cannot be classified as displaced residential occupiers or protected intending occupiers. Following the conclusion of a recent public consultation exercise, we have decided that decisive action is needed now to criminalise squatting in residential buildings. We want to reassure owners and lawful occupiers of residential property that the law will protect them should trespassers occupy their properties. We want to send a clear message to would-be squatters that it is simply not acceptable to occupy someone else’s home.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I am sure the Minister will recall that a year ago tomorrow he met my constituent Steve Cross, a commercial property manager. The Government are clearly concerned about the impact of squatting in commercial property, so it is surprising that the new clause, which I entirely support, does not include greater protections for commercial properties. Will the Minister reassure my constituent that the Government have not forgotten the devastating impact of squatting on commercial property managers, and that they will continue to look at ways of strengthening the law to provide greater protection against squatters in commercial properties?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention and for bringing her constituent to see me. I absolutely give her that reassurance, and I will do so in terms during my prepared remarks, which I hope will show her that I have not forgotten that the consultation identified the fact that 50% of the harm caused by squatters was to the owners of commercial premises. Although we are not proposing to criminalise such squatting with these measures, it is certainly not forgotten.

We recognise that this is a controversial area of policy. Many homelessness charities, for instance, are likely to continue to say that the new offence will criminalise homeless and vulnerable people who squat in run-down residential properties, but one of the reasons that the properties remain in that state is that the owners cannot get in to renovate them because the squatters are present. Consultation responses indicated that squats can be unhygienic and dangerous places to live and are no place for genuinely vulnerable people. That is why we will ensure that reforms in this area are handled sensitively, in conjunction with wider Government initiatives to tackle the root causes of homelessness. We are also working to provide affordable homes and to bring more empty homes back into use.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The Minister will, like me, have read the documents presented by Crisis, which indicate that 40% of homeless people have been squatters at some time, and that because they are often single people, they have great difficulty in getting local authority or housing association accommodation, and there are 700,000 empty properties in the country. What are homeless people supposed to do?

[Mr Blunt]

I will deal with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has quite properly raised concerns in this area, and I will go into some detail to give the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) a proper answer to his question.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, there are others who will say that any new offence should extend to squatting in commercial premises. As I said to her, I remain concerned about squatting in those properties and will work with other Departments and the enforcement authorities to see whether action against existing offences such as criminal damage and burglary could be enforced more effectively in those cases.

The Metropolitan police acknowledged, in response to our consultation, that a lack of training and practical knowledge regarding the law on squatting may be a barrier to effective enforcement. My officials will work with the Home Office and the wider police service to address these issues and fill any gaps in current police practice. We will keep the situation under review in relation to non-residential property and are not ruling out further action in the future if it is needed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the legislation provide for co-operation or contact with services—electricity, water and so on—to those houses as a method whereby people can be taken out of those houses to ensure that the squatting does not continue? Will that be covered by the legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

That is not strictly within the terms of what is proposed here. The effect would be to criminalise those who are squatting in residential premises and to create a new offence. As a first step we intend to limit the new offence to squatting in residential buildings. We consider that this option strikes the best balance. It will protect those who are likely to suffer most from squatting—those whose homes are taken over by squatters.

I shall turn now to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I know that he is a supporter of the campaign group Squatters Action for Secure Homes, and I also know that he agrees with the arguments put forward by homelessness charities, such as Crisis, that criminalising squatting will impact on homeless people who squat. I fully understand why he tabled the amendments, but I will take this opportunity to explain why I do not agree with them.

On amendment (a), many squatters claim that they do not cause any harm to anybody because they look for empty properties to occupy. In the responses to our recent consultation exercise, that point was made by squatters and squatters groups, but respondents who made that argument were missing one rather important point: the houses are not theirs to occupy. There are many reasons why a house might be left empty for more than six months without any steps being taken to refurbish, let or sell the building. For example, somebody might decide to do charitable work in another country for a year, or they might visit their second home during the summer months only. It is the owner’s prerogative to leave the house empty in those circumstances. To say that property owners or occupiers should not be protected by the criminal law in these circumstances would be unjust and it would considerably weaken our proposed new offence.

Consultation responses highlighted a concern about the number of properties that are left empty on a long-term basis. They argued that such properties can crumble into disrepair and might be seen as a blight on the local neighbourhood. But permitting squatters to occupy derelict, crumbling, unsafe houses cannot be the answer. We are doing a number of things to encourage absent owners to make better use of their properties.

We want to increase the number of empty homes that are brought back into use as a sustainable way of increasing the overall supply of housing, and to reduce the perception of neglect that can blight neighbourhoods. Reducing the number of empty homes will also help to reduce the incidence of squatting. That is why we have announced £100 million of capital funding within the affordable homes programme to tackle problematic empty homes—that is properties that are likely to remain empty without extra direct financial assistance from the Government. This programme will deliver at least 3,300 affordable homes by March 2015, as well as engaging local communities in dealing with empty homes in their area.

Amendment (c) is designed to exempt squatters from the offence if they occupy residential buildings before the date of commencement. Let me be clear that we have no plans to punish people retrospectively. If they have squatted in the past but are no longer squatting when the offence comes into force, the offence will not apply. However, we would be creating a significant loophole if we exempted squatters who initially entered the building as a trespasser in the run-up to commencement even though after commencement of the offence they remain in the building as a trespasser, they know or ought to know that they are a trespasser and that they are living there or intend to live there. Such an occupation would be no less painful for the property owners concerned.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and others are concerned that the new offence might penalise vulnerable, homeless people who squat in run-down residential properties. One of the reasons they remain in this state is, as I said, because the owners cannot get in to renovate them. It would be much better for us to introduce an offence that is capable of protecting law-abiding property owners and occupiers on the one hand, while working with other Government Departments, local authorities, the police and homelessness charities to continue to address the root causes of homelessness and to mitigate any impacts the new offence might have on the levels of rough sleeping.

We are prioritising spending on homelessness prevention, investing £400 million over the next four years, with the homelessness grant being maintained at the 2010-11 level. For the first time, we have also brought together eight Departments through the ministerial working group on homelessness to tackle the complex causes of homelessness. The group published its first report “Vision to end rough sleeping” in July 2011, which sets out joint commitments to tackle homelessness and to ensure that nobody has to spend more than one night out on our streets—“No Second Night Out”. This includes actions to prevent homelessness for those people without a stable home who may be at risk of rough sleeping. For those reasons, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It feels as though we are in a different world when the Minister describes these as measures to tackle homelessness and when one considers everything that the Government have been doing with their housing benefit cuts and with their cuts in shared room rate, which organisations say will cause thousands more people to become homeless. Is he not cognisant of those arguments being put forward very forcefully by those charities?

[Mr Blunt]

I absolutely support the measures being brought forward by my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government. The Minister for Housing and Local Government is absolutely right. One cannot but be impressed by his huge determination in chairing the ministerial group to address this issue. It is the other side of the equation, and I hope that it addresses the amendments and answers the question from the hon. Member for Islington North.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about linking up with the utility providers. It is already an offence under the Theft Act 1968 to use electricity without authority and the maximum penalty for that is five years’ imprisonment.

I hope that the House will welcome this move to protect home owners and lawful occupiers of residential property from squatters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

It is important to make it clear that section 7 does not apply to second home owners, landlords, vacant properties or probate properties, so even if applied satisfactorily, it is not the answer.

[John McDonnell]

The point made by most people in the consultation, including the police, is that if elements of section 7 need tidying up, there should be a proper discussion about that. However, to criminalise an entire group in society is to over-react to a problem that is relatively minor, although I do not wish to underestimate the problem that appears to be caused to some home or property owners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the four minutes.

A lot has been said. We have heard about parallel universes; indeed, we come here from different parts of the nation to offer different views. We have heard that the Englishman’s home is his castle. It is awful for people when their home is broken into; it feels desecrated and dirty. Where have the intruders been and what have they been up to? It is an awful feeling and we understand it, but when I heard some of the comments from Government Members I thought about my perspective—my universe.

When we talk about squatters, people think in terms of their own home, but that is a far cry from my experience of squatters. I am talking about people in places where there is no electricity, gas or water. There is no toilet and in some cases there is not even a roof. The properties are cold, damp, dark and very dangerous, with rats, stench and disease. They are also very violent places.

What about the squatters? We are not talking about hippy communes, with bean bags, beer and loud music, or about scroungers who ought to pull their socks up and get a job or go back home. We are talking about people without friends or families, and possibly without futures. In my experience, no one squats if an alternative is available.

That may not be the experience of other people, but it is mine. Debate on the provisions on legal aid and social welfare was shamefully evaded last night, but so many people in squats have suffered as a result of the failure of our system. In many cases, the state has put them into that position, whether the health service or the council; 78% of squatters have been turned away by their local authority. The failure may relate to employment support, or people may have just been downright unlucky.

Where on earth is the value in adding a criminal record to the problems those people face? The proposals are irresponsible. They are costly. At a time when we are being asked to do so many things that are unpleasant and unpopular, but possibly necessary for the deficit reduction plan, these proposals would simply add to the costs that we will all have to face, if not in our communities then in Armley prison. It does not make sense. The proposals do not add up.

The two universes could be brought together through amendment (a), which is a compromise that would improve the enforcement of existing legislation, with the back-up of the six-months provision. I shall support it.

[Mr Blunt]

It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), with the undoubted candour that he brought to his remarks. However, I profoundly disagree with him. It is a basic premise that if one takes someone else’s home, one has stolen from them one of the most important things for any of us. I am afraid we are going to part company on that principle, and as he will have heard in my opening remarks, the issue of homelessness has to be addressed in that strategy.

I thank the official Opposition for their support, presented with his usual enthusiasm by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). There was a moment when the charming side of the hon. Gentleman almost escaped—his rather touching revelation about his aptitude for politics when assessed by an external examiner at A-level. For that at least, I am grateful. However, to challenge us about talking business out, when he made a three-hour speech on the first group in Committee, would have come better from someone else.

The hon. Gentleman made an accusation that there was no clarity. There is absolute clarity in what we are doing. To try and escape into the issue of when a bothy is not a bothy, which will not be entirely clear to hikers, was the refuge of the desperate. When people are hiking they are clear where bothies are, and if they are not, they should not be undertaking the hike.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the benefits of the measure and the impact assessment. The impact assessment is clear. It has to identify benefits and potential risks. The benefits section of the impact assessment makes it clear that there could be significant benefits for residential property owners in the form of reduced legal costs in particular. Perhaps that puts into context the lobby by the legal profession. The impact assessment also suggests that if the offence acts as a deterrent, the instances of squatting may decrease.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) for his excellent speech and the impressive campaign that he has waged on the issue. He made the point that we owe a duty to the homeless, a view shared by all on the Government Benches. His pertinent challenge to find any case where squatters have improved a property by virtue of their occupation was extremely telling.

In my opening remarks I tried to answer the terms of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who asked us not to legislate on the basis of anecdote or prejudice. I say to him and to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that the issue is hardly a surprise. It has been around for a very long time. The Prime Minister announced the consultation back in June. We have consulted for 12 weeks, and what we have tabled is a limited proposal. Those on the Opposition Front Bench feel able to support it because it is limited to residential properties.

As I said, we will keep the other areas under review, particularly commercial property. We recognise that that will be more controversial. That is why the proposals are limited to subjects on which we believe there is widespread agreement. In the words of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, those on the Front Bench support criminalisation as it represents arrogant behaviour on the part of squatters, who think they can just take someone else’s property.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said that only seven victims of squatting responded to the consultation, but a number of local authorities responded and a number of law firms responded on behalf of several of their clients who had been victims of squatting. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made the same point and I am delighted to find myself in absolute agreement with him. Four landlords associations representing a very large membership responded to the consultation and they all shared a desire to strengthen the law.

My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made a powerful case. He made the basic point that what we are addressing here is something that is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong to steal someone else’s home and that is what the new clause will address—