Criminal Law (Amendment) (Householder Protection) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 9 March 2005.

Standing Committee C

Criminal Law (Amendment) (Householder Protection) Bill

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

I remind the Committee that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I do not intend to call starred amendments.

Clause 1 - Amendment of the Criminal Law Act 1967

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, after ‘person’, insert

‘in a building or part of a building’.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out

‘any building or part of a building’

and insert

‘that building or part’.

No. 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end add—

‘(1C)Subsection (1A) does not apply unless these conditions are met—

(a)the building, or part of the building, in question is a house;

(b)the person who uses the force is the householder.’.

No. 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end add—

‘(1D)In this section “house” means any dwelling (including a flat, caravan or boat).’.

No. 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end add—

‘(1E)In this section any reference to a house, or part of a house, includes a reference to any garden or other ground belonging to that house or that part.’.

No. 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end add—

‘(1F)In this section “householder”, in relation to a house, means any person who occupies the house as his residence.’.

No. 8, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end add—

‘(1G)For the purpose of this section it does not matter whether a person occupies a house as his only residence, his main residence, or otherwise as his residence, including occupation as a holiday or other temporary residence.’.

No. 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end add—

‘(1H)For the purpose of this section a person is not to be regarded as occupying a house as his residence if that occupation is as a trespasser.’.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

May I say what a pleasure it is, Mr. Cook, to see you in the Chair? I know that all members of the Committee will get a good and fair hearing as a result of you chairing our proceedings.

Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 are mine. Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), and I am sure that he will want to speak to his amendments in due course. They are good, well constructed amendments, and I shall be supporting them.

We had a good discussion on Second Reading, and I made clear my view, as did a number of my colleagues, some of whom are members of the Committee, that, for a number of reasons, the Bill is flawed. I shall not repeat what was said on Second Reading, but the amendments give us the chance to consider in detail some of the problems and flaws, and to see whether they can be ironed out. To an extent, the amendments are probing. They are intended to get answers from the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), so that we can see where he stands.

The Bill’s title is typically bureaucratic, but I think that it is mistitled. As we can see from some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, the Bill is not about the protection only of householders. Others could be covered by its provisions. I am sorry if some of the Bill’s supporters think that I am being a little cynical, but those who have to consider a Bill in Committee give the legislation a title of their own if its title does not quite fit in their mind. The title of the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Householder Protection) Bill does not quite stick in my mind, so I have been considering it under the title of “Kill a Burglar” Bill, because at its worst that is what it will authorise. I apologise for being a little cynical, but that is how I see it.

We are coming up to an election and the hon. Member for Newark will presumably be putting the Bill in his personal manifesto for his electorate—for him the Bill is, quite rightly, a good election campaigning point. I offer a word of advice. I do not think that it will go down particularly well if he says, “I promoted in Parliament my Criminal Law (Amendment) (Householder Protection) Bill.” Calling it a “Householder Protection” Bill would not be bad, but the rest is rather bureaucratic. It would be better still, in my view, if he said in his election manifesto that he had promoted his “Kill a Burglar” Bill. His electorate would at least know where he was coming from and what it was all about.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I am sure that most members of the Committee do not impute any such base or venal motives to the hon. and gallant Member for Newark, although I can understand my hon. Friend wishing to disaggregate the title. However, as my hon. Friend ponders over the title, he might consider the fact that it should be called not the “Kill a Burglar” Bill but the “kill absolutely anyone, including a wandering scout, the kid from next door trying to get his football back, or those who wander into someone else’s garden” Bill—but that is another title that does not trip off the tongue easily.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

The point is well made. I am sure that we shall return to the issue of who has rights under the Bill.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

May I tell the hon. Gentleman ever so gently that, although he might poke fun, this is a serious issue? As someone who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, I can tell him that burglary and the crimes that occur when someone burgles a home are uppermost in people’s minds following the cessation of paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

Let me say that there was no venal motive behind my suggestion. At the end of the day, however, the issue of burglary is one of the headline points about the Bill, and I was drawing attention to it. The hon. Lady makes a good point, and I do not want to poke fun at the issue of burglary or at the victims of burglary. It is an extremely serious issue, which is why, on Second Reading, I made some other suggestions about how to deal with burglars. It is a serious problem, but the question is how we go about dealing with it. As I want to make clear, that is best done through the police and the authorities.

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

The hon. Gentleman offered my hon. Friend the Member for Newark some advice, but let me put his mind at rest. My hon. Friend does not require any advice on this issue. It does not matter how the Bill’s long title is changed. Everyone in the country knows precisely what my hon. Friend is trying to do in the Bill. He is trying to give householders rights of protection, because those rights are not clear at the moment. Whether or not he puts that in his manifesto, he will rightly get the credit for standing up for something, which the hon. Member for Ealing, North manifestly failed to do on the “Today”programme last year.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. I have been lenient for the first seven minutes in allowing comments that were more properly raised on Second Reading. I remind the Committee that we are discussing specific amendments and I would appreciate it if hon. Members concentrated on the contents of those amendments.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I said that I did not want to repeat Second Reading points. In a way, I was just making introductory remarks. However, perhaps I can return to the comment made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell)? As I said on Second Reading, it is a worthy thing for the hon. Member for Newark to have introduced his Bill and for the House to consider it. He said that he had been successful in getting his own party to adopt it as party policy and in getting some movement from the Government. We have had a thorough review of the law, and, as a result, guidance has been issued by the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. The hon. Gentleman can claim credit for that. It is the detail of the Bill that gives rise to problems, however, and I deal with that in the amendment. This is a flawed Bill.

The Government have made it clear that the law is already on the side of the householder, who can use reasonable force. The benefit of the doubt will be with the householder, not the burglar, when the police and the CPS consider the matter. I oppose the death penalty, so I do not like the provision in the Bill that would give people the right to use excessive force. That has to be looked at carefully. As the hon. Member for Newark himself said on Second Reading, people cannot use grossly disproportionate force, and that is the subject of later amendments. I do not believe in the death penalty even for burglars, who, as has been said, are pretty awful, but they are not the worst criminals. We can all think of others who are worse, such as cold calculating murderers. I do believe in policing. The police need to do their job, which is where the drive needs to come from.

Nor do I believe in vigilantism, which is not a good way in which to proceed. The “Death Wish” films with Charles Bronson are a great example of that. They show what a fad this is. They were about street crime, which the Bill does not cover. The latest fad is a “Death Wish” type of vigilantism in the home against burglars. It is not a good policy, because only the strongest person, such as a big strong man, can take on a burglar in their own home. That is not an option for a vulnerable woman or an elderly and frail person.

That takes me right to my amendment. Although I am opposed to vigilantism, I am not against self-defence. We should consider self-defence that occurs on the street as well as in the home. The Bill makes a false distinction between the two, as my amendment highlights. Under the Bill, for example, the test for a victim who suffered rape in the street or in a park would be different from that for a victim who suffered it in their own home. That is not right. The rapist would be a trespasser in the home, but not outside it.

I have argued that the claim of self-defence should apply for women who kill a violent partner.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Will he explain why he wants

“in a building or part of a building”

to be inserted after the word “person”? Surely he is confining the import of the Bill to a building rather than expanding it to include the street.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I do want to insert those words and, although you, Mr. Cook, are giving me anxious looks, I want to put the matter into context. The crucial part of my amendment is the distinction between vigilantism, with which I do not agree, and self-defence, with which I do agree. Self-defence is problematic because it must be genuine, but it should not be a different matter in the street from in the home. Nor should it be an excuse for someone to take the law into their own hands, which is a danger under the Bill.

Under the Bill, the householder who does the killing can be anywhere. He can be inside the building or outside it. He can be on the roof or in the street, within the boundary of the premises or outside it. He can be on the outside shooting in. The burglar must be inside the building or trying to get out of it. That is a ridiculous distinction, and is full of problems. Could not someone trying to get in be a window cleaner? Could someone say in their defence, “Well, I thought he was trying to get in, but he turned out to be a window cleaner,” or, “I shook his ladder and he fell off,” or, “He had an accident and got killed?” Their excuse would be in this provision, which is unacceptable.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Is it the hon. Gentleman’s contention that if I, as a householder, see a burglar going into my home, I can do nothing until I run round, open the back or front door, get into the house and deal with him in my home? Is that what he wants to persuade us of by his amendment?

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

The law already provides the opportunity, which is not confined to householders or to those within the boundaries of the house—this was the point of my original remarks when I tried to set the scene—to use reasonable force in self-defence. As I said, that has been strengthened by the Government’s guidance. Clearly, therefore, doing nothing in those circumstances is not the issue. However, the question arises—and this opens the matter up seriously—of someone shooting from outside, albeit that it might be the householder. As we have been reminded by the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, it might not be the householder but a security guard or someone similar. It is a problem.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

My hon. Friend has used a phrase that we have heard a lot in the House and in the media in relation to the Bill—the phrase “genuine self-defence”. Will he provide the Committee with a few examples to define that?

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

That is a good point, and there are probably people of a more legal turn of mind than mine and of more legal expertise who could set out that definition better than I can. However, we all know about and have come across relevant cases.

I have come across cases of battered women who have killed their violent partners and I have argued in the House that that was self-defence and that they should not have been given a mandatory life sentence. I have been involved in cases where people said that they were the victims of racial attacks and had struck back with force in self-defence. That has been a contentious issue and it is right that it should be a legal defence, even in the event of the person who was trying to attack being killed. There should still be a defence, as for the householder in the present instance.

However, there are risks to the approach It tends to make carrying a knife or a gun against the fear of an attack almost acceptable; I do not think that we want that. The Government have legislated against guns. What should be specified is genuine self-defence in the circumstances.

I want to return to the point of the amendment: the question of the householder outside the building shooting in and the burglar being inside, or trying to get inside, the building. I gave the example of the window cleaner. What about someone who had lost his key and was trying to get in through the window or over the fence? Someone else associated with the house, who would probably be another householder who perhaps did not recognise him—or who might not even be a householder, if the supposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North is right—could assault the individual who was trying to get in. That would not be reasonable.

Perhaps a teenage son or daughter who was a member of the household might give their friend a key, while they went down the road to the shops to get a few beers, or a few sweets. They might say, “Let yourself into my house. Here’s the key. Wait for me there.” If their friend did so, the parent might come back before the return of the son or daughter of the household, see someone unknown to them in their home and, taken by surprise, assault them. I do not think that that would be a good reason, either. The question of attempts to get into the building is difficult and problematic.

Under my amendment, both the burglar and the householder would have to be inside the building or part of the building. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North is more explicit, but I think that part of a building would probably include a garden or a garden shed or outbuildings such as a garage. That, incidentally, raises another interesting point—the Bill presumably gives the householder the right to attack a burglar who is in a garage, not for burglary but for auto theft or something akin to it. That, too, shows how, because of the range of circumstances, it is not easy to define what the Bill is about.

The worst aspect is that the distinction that is being made is a false one. The householder may be outside and the burglar may be inside, but what about a burglar running away with property? When he is off the premises, is it all right to attack him? That was an aspect of the Tony Martin defence.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

Has the hon. Gentleman studied the guidance that was given by the Crown Prosecution Service when the Bill was published a few weeks ago?

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I have, indeed, and I referred to it on Second Reading. It is included in my speech somewhere, but I cannot find it now—I think that is because it relates to the next amendment on which I am due to speak. I have studied it and it certainly means that the CPS and police will consider cases sympathetically to the householder; there will be swift decisions and they will be favourable to the householder and not the burglar.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

If the hon. Gentleman has studied the guidance, he will have seen that even under the present law it is perfectly acceptable to try to apprehend a burglar who is off one’s property and making off with property that has been taken from the house, and that a degree of force may already be used. I fail to understand why the hon. Gentleman is questioning my Bill on those grounds.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

That is the point about the law that already exists, and reasonable force. The Bill is adding a new category, under which householders will have more powers in the relevant circumstances—new and differential powers that they would not have in the street.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Is not that the point of the Bill—that additional powers are required? Its weakness, if there is a weakness in it, is that it is too modest in its reach; there should be the equivalent of a drainpipe clause, to give the householder protection against attempts to claim compensation by, for example, someone who has shinned up a damaged drainpipe and fallen off, breaking a leg or a back. That is the Bill’s only potential weakness.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I do not agree with my hon. Friend on the general point that he makes, but I do agree about the compensation culture. In the circumstances that he describes, compensation should not be given.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

I hesitate to allow debate to continue down that drainpipe. Perhaps hon. Members can restrict their comments and logic to the amendments under consideration.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I ask the Committee to consider what might happen under the Bill if someone comes to the front door whom the householder believes to be a burglar or whatever, or with whom the householder has had some run-in in the past. Perhaps the person at the front door has come to apologise, or perhaps he has come to continue the feud, and the fracas or assault takes place at the front door without the person actually crossing the threshold. Presumably the householder in those circumstances would have a defence under the Bill. All they would have to say was, “Well, I thought he was going to try to force his way in.” That is problematic, because a bailiff has a right to force his way in and might do so.

Can a householder who assaults a bailiff say in his defence, “I thought he was a burglar. I thought he was going to commit trespass and take my possessions”? In my time as an MP, I have seen many cases in which constituents have been unfairly treated because of bills that have ended up with a visit from the bailiff. They could have said, “I was defending my property from being unfairly taken from me.” The provision could make the life of a bailiff much more dangerous.

The amendment seeks to establish that the trespasser and the householder are at least both on the premises when the assault or self-defence takes place. It is up to the hon. Member for Newark and his supporters to make their case for there being such exceptions under the Bill. Why can the householder shoot or assault the burglar from anywhere off the premises, but the burglar must be on the premises? That is why I made the point about the burglar running away. The Bill arises from the whole Tony Martin case. I know that there was some sympathy for him, but the Bill does not really address the matter.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

My hon. Friend mentions the Tony Martin case, which it is almost impossible for us not to mention at some stage. I note that the future of the BBC is being discussed in the Chamber. Does my hon. Friend agree that all decent people will have noticed with a sense of horror that the BBC has paid Brendan Fearon, the surviving burglar in that case, £4,500?

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. This is all fascinating stuff, but it is not entirely pertinent to the task in hand. I appeal to the Committee: for heaven’s sake, let us focus on the points at issue, or we will be all over the countryside next and into the western isles.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I shall not go down that route, other than to say that I hear the opinion expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

As the Member of Parliament who has since been at the eye of the Tony Martin case, I should point out that only two of my constituents were involved. One was shot dead, and the other was shot and wounded. May I make it quite clear, as I have throughout our consideration of this measure, that the Bill would make no exception for Mr. Tony Martin? He would still go to prison. Speaking purely personally, and as Mr. Brendan Fearon’s Member of Parliament, I have absolutely no sympathy for Mr. Tony Martin.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I understand that, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s statement. There is no doubt, however, that this drive for a change in the law arises from the Tony Martin case and the sympathy expressed by the then Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Front-Bench Members for at least certain aspects of his case. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that his Bill does not fully address the issue raised by that case. My amendment draws to the attention of the Committee the fact that the issue is partly whether the burglar and the householder are on or off the premises, and whether we are talking about a house or other building.

Tony Martin waited to entrap the burglars; he had a shotgun and meant to kill them. That was excessive force; even under the Bill, it would probably be seen as disproportionate force, although he would have a better chance of getting off. My understanding is that he shot at Brendan Fearon when he was running off the premises, and that is very pertinent to the amendment: Brendan Fearon was off the premises when Tony Martin shot him.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

That is irrelevant.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

No, it is not, because the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, as it is currently worded, would not cover that case. Interestingly, I suspect that most of the Bill’s supporters, such as those on the “Today” programme, wanted a Bill that gave householders the power to tackle or assault a burglar in self-defence, and, if they could not do so on the premises, because the burglar had run off, perhaps with their property, to tackle him on the street as well. That relates directly to the amendment.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. I have deep respect for the logic that the hon. Gentleman is applying to the points under discussion, but his arguments are becoming circuitous and repetitive. If he can address himself to the specifics of the amendment, we can then perhaps open it to general debate.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

The point was directly relevant to the amendment, but I take the point that you consider it repetitive, Mr. Cook. I shall try not to make it again. I was just saying that it was directly relevant to the amendment.

To move on, why does the Bill apply just to trespass? Why does it not, for example, apply to a rapist in the street, as opposed to one who is committing trespass? Why does it not apply to the perpetrators of domestic violence, perhaps against a spouse or a child? They are committing the same or a similar crime of assault in the home, but they would not be deemed to be trespassers, so the victim would not have the right of self-defence proposed in the Bill. Why does property have a higher priority than an individual? That is quite offensive. I come from a long line of socialists, and I think that the person is more important than property; at the very least, they should be equal.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Let me just pick up on that point. The hon. Gentleman has asked a rhetorical question: why is property more important than the person? However, that is not the issue. Does he accept that a special sanctity applies to one’s home? Does he agree with the Home Secretary—his Home Secretary—who said:

“I firmly believe it is the right of every British citizen to protect himself, his family and his home from intruders of any kind.”

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that or not?

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I do, and I have made speeches in the House saying that a person’s home is his castle. That is why I introduced my Racial Harassment Bill to ensure that people did not have to suffer harassment in their own homes. Indeed, that is why the Government have introduced their guidance and tipped the balance firmly in favour of the householder, as opposed to the burglar. I do not think, therefore, that the hon. Lady’s criticism of me is fair.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman for half an hour and I have completely forgotten the point that he was originally trying to make. Could he possibly explain the purpose of the amendment in a few sentences and then sit down and let the rest of the Committee consider his point?

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I will do that again, but I fear that, having done it three or four times, I will be accused of repetitiveness. Let me just spell out my point again.

Under the Bill as it is currently worded, the householder can be anywhere, including outside the premises shooting in, while the burglar has to be in the building and cannot be running away outside the premises. I am saying—these are the few words that the hon. Gentleman wants—that that is incongruous. It is not the right way to deal with the situation. It is an example of how the Bill’s whole approach is wrong. As I was saying, assaults in the street are just as important as assaults in the home, and the rights of the individual suffering those assaults should be the same in terms of self-defence. Otherwise, we start to get difficult differentiations in the law that are not acceptable. That has summed up in a few words the purpose of my amendment.

I know that we all want to debate that point, but I should like to put a few examples to the Committee. I have jotted them down, and although some may be deemed to be relatively small beer, I should like to make them. What about a mentally ill person, for example?

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

I have listened more carefully than the hon. Gentleman deserves to what he has said so far. He is clearly going on at great length and injecting a frivolous tone into what is a matter of great concern to our constituents. Let me just comfort him with the point that Her Majesty’s Opposition will ensure that his constituents see the Hansard report of what he is saying so that they can judge whether he is bringing to the matter the seriousness that it deserves. Furthermore, every point that the hon. Gentleman has made so far was answered on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, whose excellent speech he undoubtedly heard.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I heard the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I do not think that he answered the particular points relating to the amendment. Otherwise, the amendment would not be on the amendment paper. Indeed, its purpose is to make him explain why there is the distinction I described. I am happy for the Hansard from Second Reading and this debate to go out to my constituents, and to say that I strongly support the Government’s guidance, which gives much stronger weighting to householders than burglars in how the police and Crown Prosecution Service deal with such a situation. On Second Reading, I put forward proposals to have even stronger measures against multiple burglars, and I am also happy for that to be on record.

I shall give my examples. A mentally ill person coming to the door—

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. I would be remiss in my duty if I were to permit repetition of examples. I am happy to hear examples that illustrate the difficulties that the Committee has faced, but I hope that these are new examples and not repeats of ones given previously.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

There is no repeat. I jotted the examples down in the lunch break. I will not give them all to the Committee, but let me give just a couple.

One example happened to me a long time ago. When my step-son was in his teens, an angry man came to the door and demanded to be let in, saying that he had a shotgun, because my son was going out with his daughter and he was very upset about it. The first route to take was not to let him in—especially as he had a shotgun—and then to phone the police; it was not for me to go out and start a fight with him. I have not got a gun or some other weapon, but if I had, it would not have been right for me to get it, challenge him and have a deadly fight in the street. That sort of solution is ridiculous. My point is again that the first route should be to go via the police.

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I understand your injunction that you cannot allow repetition, but can you tell the Committee whether there comes a point when a contribution is so otiose and low-grade that you feel that you have to bring it to a close?

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

We do not have much of an Opposition at the moment, but we would not have much of an Opposition in terms of what they said if decisions were made based on what was low-grade.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. I have ruled on the point of order. Can we now continue with the amendment?

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

Let me give another example, then. What about a paedophile who has been released and is in his own home when vigilantes who want to assault him knock on his door to try to get into his house, where they would be trespassers? Presumably that man would have the right under this measure to defend his property and start shooting at everybody. He would have cause to have fear of assault and of being killed; there have been cases of paedophiles being killed by vigilantes. Is the best solution not that they have this sort of law available to them, but that they can go to the police and get things sorted out in that way?

What about youths who pick on an individual and stone his home? There have been a number of such cases. The youths are not trespassers, as they are throwing stones from outside the premises. That individual in his own home has the same right to protection as any other householder. There is no distinction between someone coming on to the premises and someone throwing stones at it.

I am aware that others want to speak and although I have several other examples I shall not give them as I want to hear what the hon. Member for Newark has to say in response to the debate. I want to know why the clause is drafted as it is, why he favours vigilantism over policing, and why an offence in the street is not punished in the same way as a similar offence in the house, creating an anomalous situation.

The Bill as drafted, especially the clause, is not fully thought through; it is appropriate to explore it in depth and Standing Committee is the place to do so. Despite the bad feeling generated by Conservative Members, I have no regrets at raising the issue and probing it, because I want the answers. We are not helped by having flawed and inadequate legislation on the statute book, certainly not when the Government have already produced excellence guidance, which is a better way to help people.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 4 to 9. Without wishing to embarrass you, Mr. Cook, I add my gratitude to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) for the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship. I was on the armed forces parliamentary scheme with you and I have respect for your powers of command, which no doubt will be used in the debate.

It is important to put on record two matters that relate directly to my amendments and those tabled by my hon. Friend. First, I repeat a point that was touched on earlier: the hon. and gallant Member for Newark has brought this business to the House in the best possible spirit and for the best motives. I impute to him none of the motives that have been mentioned outside the House; he has acted correctly and properly and recognised a deep concern that has spread throughout the land, a point that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) mentioned, too. There is no doubt that the people of this country are concerned and worried, and I respect and admire the hon. and gallant Gentleman for addressing the issue. I am extremely grateful for the assistance that he has given me in our discussions since Second Reading and for the assistance that Heather Millican, of his staff, has given me in replying to my questions.

Secondly, before I go on to the detail, I want to reiterate the seriousness of the issue and the fact that concern exists. We are discussing the amendments simply because they are designed to make the Bill better. The objective is not to destroy it, because to do so would be, in the words of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, otiose. There is a real concern, and my amendments are designed not to destroy, but to enhance.

I understand the motives of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in presenting a Bill of this size—a bijou Bill. However, I think that in this case he has fallen between the Scylla and Charybdis of brevity and coherence.

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

It is pronounced “Charybdis”.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Mr. Cook, you will forgive me. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I did not have the benefit of a private education and I left school at 15. Therefore, I am self-taught. [Interruption.] I will certainly give way to someone who is more skilled in demotic Greek or Latin than I am.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for all the comments that he has made so far and for his recognition of the motives behind the Bill. May I say that I would rather fall between the two bodies that he has mentioned than between two stools?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I think that I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that comment, but I am not entirely sure, to be perfectly honest. The limitations of my education are yet again revealed.

I was making the point that, in presenting a brief Bill, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has produced legislation that, frankly, would be unworkable. The Bill has already attracted the attention of people outside the House who see it as a legitimisation of violence Bill. The courage that the hon. and gallant Gentleman showed in a very distinguished military career has been matched by his courage this afternoon when he said on the record that he has no brief for Tony Martin and, by implication, for Kenneth Noye or any of the other people whose examples have been given in Committee and on Second Reading.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The hon. Gentleman has said that he believes the Bill in its present form to be “unworkable”. Will he expound on that and say exactly why he thinks it unworkable?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as always. Both she and her husband have much more experience of far greater stresses in such matters than ever I could pretend to understand. I respect very much her position and the information and experience that she brings to the Committee. The measure does not give carte blanche to the householder. It does not even define a householder. The Bill is inaccurately titled because it is not a householder defence Bill and does not even define a householder.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman uses the phrase “grossly disproportionate”. He accepts that the existing common law self-defence argument is applicable, because otherwise he would not qualify it by use of that phrase. Therefore, the present law is demonstrably capable of being used as a resolution in this case. The Bill is unworkable on the grounds of definition, but I will come to that.

I also gently and respectfully suggest that the Bill is unworkable because of proposed new subsection (1A)(b) in clause 1(2), which states that

“this”—

the fact that the degree of force used was grossly disproportionate—

“was or ought to have been apparent to the person”.

I am proud not to be a lawyer and understand that far too many lawyers are in the House of Commons. I apologise to any learned Members if they feel offended by that, but there are rather too many of them. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Down was a law lecturer. A law lecturer requires a far higher degree of skill than a mere practitioner. However, even a lecturer in law as distinguished as the hon. Lady would surely have immense difficulty in trying to analyse the words in the Bill:

“ought to have been apparent to the person”.

Few of us are capable of mind-reading, but how in heaven’s name could we analyse the frame of mind of a householder or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead mentioned, a security guard, a squatter or even the father of the girlfriend of his son?

Such cases would end up in a court of law because there would have to be an inquest if someone was killed during a burglary. Lawyers on thousands of guineas an hour would spend day after day leafing through their musty tomes of Archbold, and the various other volumes that I see the hon. Member for Newark has brought along, to try to calculate what

“ought to have been apparent”.

Even the wonderful Heather Millican could not produce that sort of information in her supporting documentation.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

My hon. Friend mentioned the example of a squatter. That is the subject of one of his amendments; I did not go into that. Could a squatter be a householder under the Bill, and therefore assault a genuine home owner—albeit an absent home owner—trying to enter the premises? The Bill would give rights to squatters which I do not think its promoter envisaged. Will my hon. Friend discuss that a little more?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I was coming to my subsequent amendments. My hon. Friend has, over his many years in this place, won a reputation for being one of the great analysts and someone who studies the minutiae of the law. His forensic skills have been displayed to the delectation of the House and to a wider audience on many occasions. I have no doubt that when his many constituents, who vote for him with regularity and eagerness, receive the copy of Hansard, which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has generously offered to circulate at his own expense, they will appreciate his words even more.

Amendments Nos. 4 to 9—I see a look of relief on your face, Mr. Cook—would clarify inconsistencies. The Bill refers to buildings and could relate to buildings other than residences, which is a problem. We all have in our minds the picture of a house—the word “householder” is in the title—but it is not limited to houses. It could apply to shops, offices or warehouses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead said, it is not confined to a resident, as we would describe the poor so and so who pays the mortgage or the rent, the householder or the occupier, but anyone in the building. He gave some dramatic examples so I will not bore the Committee by going through another litany of examples, but I could—

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

Heaven forfend.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I could because there is an inconsistency. The example of a squatter is valid. I spent many years working for a housing association in London and frequently had to deal with squatters. I was assaulted by them many times and would not particularly like them to be given the right of redress under common law.

The Bill would enable an undefined anyone to use force against anyone else—also undefined—who is in the building or attempting to enter it. My amendments would ensure that the Bill applies specifically to householders or residents only.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the hon. Gentleman address one point? Amendment No. 4 will narrow significantly the Bill’s provisions by introducing the words “the householder”. What would happen if I, as a visitor to a house, were present there with my children when an intruder came in with a shotgun or a knife? Would I be entitled to lift a hand to defend my children?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

The hon. Lady puts her finger precisely on the problem. At present, the Bill is called the “Householder Protection” Bill, but it does not protect householders because it does not define them. The amendments are designed to do precisely that. They were tabled more in sorrow than in anger, and more in a spirit of helpfulness than from an urge to destroy. Common law would apply in the case that she suggests, but the Bill would not assist her in any way because she would not be the householder referred to in the long title. Amendment No. 4 would specifically define the position of the householder.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The hon. Gentleman often tables a series of amendments, as he is perfectly aware. I draw his attention to amendment No. 7. In it, he defines “householder” to include

“any person who occupies the house as his residence.”

Residence surely means staying in a particular house at least overnight and at least once. What would happen to me as a visitor when visiting such a house? Have I no right to protect my children? That was my original question.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

One would almost suspect that the hon. Lady had read my notes. I have no secrets from her. Indeed, it would do me no good if I tried to keep anything secret, because she can see right through me.

The hon. Lady refers to amendment No. 7, which states:

“occupies the house as his residence.”

In the two pillars of law—in common law, and in housing law going back to the Housing Act 1985—the occupation of a building as a residence is a defined legal phrase. Occupying the building as tenant, a housing association tenant, an owner or an owner-occupier are all contained within the ambit of that legal definition. I am trying to address that precise point. On one hand, I entirely accept that the squatter would have no right to attack the innocent young officer of the housing association or the returning owner; on the other hand, it would equally disfranchise the casual guest—the overnight guest—who happens to have an unpleasant experience. It is that sort of anomaly that makes the difficulties in the Bill so obvious.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

We have been talking a lot about householders, and presumably about buildings in which people live, eat and sleep. Does my hon. Friend agree that some people may own other buildings, such as garages and sheds, and spend a lot of their time there? What would be the law as far as those buildings are concerned?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

My hon. Friend may choose to cast an eye over amendments Nos. 5 and 6, which address those very points. She says that a house is a building in which people eat and sleep.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

Or spend a lot of time in.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

People do many things in them. My amendments mention flats, caravans and boats. We have people living on canal boats or narrow boats in my part of the world—bearing in mind the price of housing in west London, that is entirely understandable. Equally, amendment No. 6 specifically widens the Bill’s ambit to include

“reference to any garden or other ground belonging to that house or that part.”

I hope that people in Newark and throughout the country recognise that I am trying to help by addressing precisely the sort of concern that the keen forensic mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) draws to the Committee’s attention.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I appreciate that many of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments verge on the helpful, but amendment No. 7 states:

“In this section, ‘householder’ in relation to a house, means any person who occupies the house as his residence.”

How would a babysitter or a shop owner fit into that definition? He has touched on both those points, but if he could clarify that matter for the purposes of the record, I would be most grateful.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it in some ways illuminates the centrality of the difficulty faced by the Committee in trying both to achieve legal and legislative clarity and to take account of all the different ways in which people live their lives. The answer to the question about commercial premises is that they do not fit into the definition, because the Bill—it is a householder protection Bill—does not cover commercial premises. We are not discussing commercial premises; that is a different pillar of the law. We can certainly do so, and I am sure that we will do so again. Those of us who gather here after May may find ourselves doing precisely that. The hon. and gallant Member for Newark looks quizzically at me. I was just saying that there is a rumour abroad that there may be an election in the spring, although I would naturally discount it—[Interruption.]

The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned the situation in respect of a babysitter, an au pair, or someone else who is occupying the premises by permission of the householder. Were he to table an amendment to address that matter, it would certainly attract wide support, because that area needs to be defined. Were he to suggest a provision relating to anyone in the property, be it a house, boat, caravan, garden or garden shed, who is there by express permission as the agent or, in the legal term, as the servant of the person who has the right to give that power, we could discuss the matter in a more positive way. However, the hon. and gallant Gentleman’s Bill does not mention that matter; there is no au pair subsection or babysitter clause. There is nothing in the Bill that refers to people occupying the premises by permission of the householder.

We have rightly concentrated on those who occupy the premises without permission of the householder, because that is of much more concern to us in terms of the phrasing of the Bill. However, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has, almost certainly unwittingly, virtually destroyed the main thrust of his argument by introducing that example, because it shows precisely the sort of legal minefield that we would be blindly straying into were we to agree to this brief Bill, although it has been introduced for noble reasons.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he has been generous in taking interventions, and I appreciate that. This is a serious issue, and I appreciate the seriousness with which he has addressed it. In order to give him some sleep this evening and to avoid his worrying needlessly, the Committee should be reminded that, since 2002, Practice Directions (Criminal Proceedings: Consolidation) have existed, which provide separate guidelines for burglary at a dwelling house and burglary at a non-dwelling. The issue of how a house is defined is covered in those guidelines.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Had I been one of the hon. Lady’s students at Queen’s, I would undoubtedly have been a better person and a finer Member of Parliament—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] The enthusiasm with which that comment was greeted might seem to imply that I am somehow failing in my duties at present.

I agree with the hon. Lady, because the problem with the Bill as drafted is that that definition is not explicit. There are legal definitions and current legal guidelines. Reference to the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service booklet has already been made. If we refer to the rubric of that guide note, we will see that the existing law can and should be used. However, it demonstrably does not address the issue of confidence, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman rightly illuminates by introducing the Bill. It is that juxtaposition between a law that is usable and the failure to attain confidence in that law that is the most useful product of our discussion.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I would like to go down a different path. My hon. Friend said that the Bill did not apply to commercial premises, but I believe that it could. Although “householder protection” is in the short title, the long title does not refer to householders. There is no definition of householder in the Bill either. My hon. Friend has tabled an amendment to limit it to householders. Clause 1(2) is key. It states:

“Where a person uses force in the prevention of crime or in the defence of persons or property on another who is in any building or part of a building having entered as a trespasser or is attempting so to enter”.

That surely could be commercial premises. A nightclub bouncer could use the clause as a defence. Is there any reason why that is not so? Is my logic flawed there? Could commercial premises be covered?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I am not the author of this Bill. If I were I might have made the contradistinction between commercial and domestic premises. I am a humble Back Bencher seeking to help the promoter of the Bill by introducing some clarity. I have tried to define “house” in the context of “householder” in amendment No. 4. Had I to cast my net even wider I would certainly have included commercial premises, but my amendment refers to “house”.

On Second Reading, I referred to the case of a village postmaster who in the face of a most vicious, unprovoked attack by someone who broke into his post office, defended himself. It resulted in his attacker’s death but he was exonerated and acquitted. That example preyed on my mind a great deal and I wondered why we could not extend the Bill to commercial premises. The answer—and I am again grateful to the promoter of the Bill and his staff for their assistance—is that the Bill is aimed specifically at the domestic context. If he wishes to expand it to the commercial world he has the right to do so, but at present we are talking about a domestic situation. We are talking about householders in both the long and short titles. I am trying to clarify use of the word “householder” by defining the legal status of the householder and the legal status of the house.

Some who are following our proceedings may think that this is merely MPs arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but let us never forget for one second that we are talking about life and death. We do not need to come up with lurid examples, but a person could be killed and the courts would have to judge whether the killing was lawful under the terms of the Bill and the existing common law. Definition is utterly crucial. To say that it is a matter of life or death is not an exaggeration but an illustration of the seriousness of the subject.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

My hon. Friend will be well aware that many people live above the shop. People who run a newsagents or a post office may have a flat above the commercial premises. While they are upstairs watching the television or having a meal in their private quarters, the shop beneath could be invaded. If they came down to try deal with the situation, I do not think that they would be protected as the Bill stands.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I am obviously grateful to my hon. Friend. My amendment No. 5 specifically brings flats within the ambit of the Bill. It does not and cannot deal with the issue of people in transit from the flat above the shop to the shop. In many ways, and not for the first time, my hon. Friend has shone a beam of illumination into the murky world of putative legislation. That is the sort of problem that we have to face. This is not some abstruse, quasi-legalistic issue: a person could be standing in the dock of a court of this land with someone else 6 ft under the soil because of this sort of problem. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. I wish that I had had the wit or the foresight to table better amendments which had taken those points on board.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

May I repeat the question that I asked earlier? I believe that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful. Therefore, on amendment No. 7, could he give me a simple and, if at all possible, brief answer to a question? Does his definition include a babysitter or a shop owner?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that I have not answered his question. I cannot answer it because I have not drafted the Bill. I have drafted the amendment, which states:

“occupies the house as his residence.”

It certainly does not include babysitters or au pairs because, as I said earlier, I was relying on two definitions that refer to and define the role of a resident or a person occupying a house as his residence. One is in housing legislation and the other is in common law. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the amendment does not say “primary residence”. Those words are frequently used in legislation, and, by logical extension, there can be a secondary residence. The amendment does not seek to define in those terms.

I am trying to be helpful, as the Bill does not even approach the lack of comprehension in my amendments. The Bill is unclear, and I am trying to make it clearer. My amendments are semi-clear; I entirely accept that none of them are totally clear. I give way to someone who knows more about the law than I ever could.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in taking an intervention. I, too, regret that he was not a student of mine.

May I draw to the attention of the hon. Gentleman and members of the Committee the fact that, although the amendments are very interesting indeed, they are superfluous, in that we already have on the statute book a definition of a building? A definition is provided in the Theft Act 1968, which includes as a building something with a degree of permanence. It also includes an inhabited vehicle or a vessel, which covers the hon. Gentleman’s concern about occupied barges in his constituency. We already have a working definition of a building.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I am extremely grateful for that. Like the hon. Lady, I wrestled with the 1968 Act when I was considering the comments that I would make in this debate. My problem with the Act, which I read as part of my attempt at least to approach the degree of educational excellence that is displayed by many people in this Committee, is that it refers to a great extent to theft from vehicles. Even the hon. and gallant Member for Newark is not proposing that someone who happens to be sitting in a car when someone breaks into it can kill in self-defence or in defence of their residence. Sadly, there are people who live in cars, but the Bill is not about people living in knackered Mazdas on the bypass defending themselves against somebody smashing in the quarter light and reaching their hand through to grab them by the throat. If it were, we could talk about all the sections in the 1968 Act.

The hon. Lady is correct in saying that there are already definitions and legal recourse in legislation for a householder faced with such a situation. However, I do not know—you do, Mr. Cook, but I do not—whether one can simply say “and within the Bill we incorporate the Theft Act 1968.” I do not know whether that would be plagiarism or whether it is even allowable. I thought that the purpose of legislation was to try to right a wrong—to correct something that needs correcting—and to do so in a coherent and utterly unambiguous way so that in months or years to come some overpaid, bewigged barrister should not be given free licence to argue the minutiae of double meanings. We should get it right at this stage, not just to stop barristers filling their pockets but because the victims, their relatives, and the people involved in any case that would be covered by an Act passed by this House would look to us to have produced something of legislative clarity, which would stand up to scrutiny.

The problem that we must deal with is precisely the one raised by the hon. Lady. Whether we can simply incorporate the Theft Act into the provisions I do not know, but I do know that the brief Bill that has been promoted, with the best of all motives, by the hon. Member for Newark, is not workable as it stands. I return to that original expression, not with a tone of aggression but with a tone of regret. I know what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do and I desperately hope that he can tackle the issue of confidence in the legislative process. However, the Bill is not the way to do it.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I was pondering over the intervention of the hon. Member for North Down, which has me increasingly worried about cases in which the property from which the rights in question flow is a vehicle or a vessel. Disputes can happen over who owns a house, or who is the householder, as my hon. Friend will know, but they are more likely to happen about who owns a vehicle or vessel. We all know that there have been legal cases on such matters. Surely great complication will result if one of the people who claims such rights goes in, saying, “This is definitely mine, and I assault you for trying to come and get it or claim it,” and quotes the Bill as defence. Is not that a difficulty that the hon. Member for North Down has raised?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Mr. Cook, you will forgive me for allowing my mind to wander briefly at the prospect of an officer on the bridge of a Type 23 frigate having someone pull up alongside in a rigid inflatable boat and try to invade the ship. I think that the defence would probably be fairly strong in that case, not to say robust. However, the point about vehicles is correct. We are not talking about someone occupying a vehicle as their residence—that is not what the Bill says—but the difficulty is that such a case could be affected. When the Theft Act 1968 is prayed aid we must consider all the ramifications—not as an intellectual exercise but as a matter of life and death.

I respect the hon. Member for Newark, but the purpose of my amendments, on which I am just finishing—

Mr. Mitchellrose—

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

The purpose of my amendments, the introduction to which I am just finishing, is to seek clarification. I give way to the hon. Gentleman; I was just clearing my throat.

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

I am so stunned by the remarks that have been made that I can barely rise to my feet. I, like the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, have been pondering the intervention of the hon. Member for North Down. The hon. Member for Ealing, North said how much improved his grip of the law would be had he studied under the hon. Lady. She has advised him that there is already legislation that makes virtually all his amendments otiose. Will he now take her advice, for the reasons that he gave, and withdraw his amendment so that we can get on with studying this important Bill?

4.3 pm

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was making a point, with rather more grace than the hon. Member for North Down did, about existing legislation that covers the purpose of my amendments. Legislation does exist, but it is not before the Committee this afternoon.

This afternoon, we are considering an amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Newark to the Criminal Law Act 1967, and I shall confine myself to that area. The fact that other aspects of common law, of criminal law, of various other pillars of legislation and legal precedents could apply is not within the Committee’s ambit. I suspect that you would have little patience with us, Mr. Cook, if we sought to widen the ripples of the debate so broadly.

As I said, my amendments seek not to reverse the thrust of the Bill or to emasculate or destroy it, but hopefully to clarify it and its intentions and to help us to go some way in re-establishing the confidence in the power of the law to protect the individual, which is the crux of the matter before us this afternoon.

Amendment No. 4 seeks simply to rule out proposed new subsection (1A) unless the building in question is a house and the person who uses the force is the householder. I entirely accept that by defining a house and a householder, and including those categories, automatically excludes a great many other categories. Sadly, unless we are to say that anyone can do anything with anything to anyone, we have to apply legislative stricture and define the Bill’s precise ambit, which is why I sought to limit the proposal to that of a house or a householder. However, in the spirit of charity, and having studied long into the night—not just Archbold and the other authors who have been mentioned—I noted that the definition of a house does not include a flat, a caravan or a boat. I could have extended the proposal and made it wider by including tents and people in temporary accommodation in tepees, wigwams and any number of bizarre new-age hereditaments.

I am talking about houses, including flats, caravans or boats, in relation to the citizenry of this nation having the confidence that they can be protected in their home. I utterly endorse the point made by the hon. Member for North Down about the sanctity of the home, which may well be a flat, a caravan or a boat. Unfortunately, the use of the word “householder” is far too narrow.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. Could you obtain some advice from the Clerk? The title of the Bill contains the words “householder protection”, yet there is no reference to a householder in the Bill. The Bill proposes that a person may use force if they are on premises; should the title be altered?

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made the point that he seeks to register. It is not a point of order for the Chair; it is not a point of order at all.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I sympathise with my hon. Friend’s confusion. I referred earlier to my point about the juxtaposition of brevity and coherence, and the fact that the search for one may be detrimental to the other. Like the cavalry he knows so well, I sought to ride to the rescue of the hon. and gallant Member for Newark.

Amendment No. 5 includes within its ambit flats, caravans and boats, although not what my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, in a typically prescient and helpful intervention, referred to as commercial premises where the person who operates the business lives above the premises. Unfortunately I lack my hon. Friend’s intelligence and wisdom, or I would probably have included it in the amendment.

I extended the physical ambit in amendment No. 6, which is my favourite, to include a reference to

“any garden or other ground belonging to that house or that part.”

It is not an attempt to address the Kenneth Noye conundrum; Kenneth Noye killed a police officer in the garden of his house and his defence was that he feared that the police officer, who was in plain clothes, was seeking to enter the house. The amendment includes within the defined demesne the garden or any dwelling within that garden; that is essential.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman may have some sympathy with the amendment, because he will realise that a person’s sanctuary—the word used by the hon. Member for North Down—can include their garden; a garden is a lovesome thing. The fact that someone invades a person’s garden must be given consideration, not just because that person may be lurking in a gazebo, resting in a hammock, or in a garage working on one of their cars, but because that garden is part of their property. If we are to allow people to defend themselves within their homes, the definition of “home” should include the area immediately around it: the demesne, area, garden or blessed plot.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The hon. Gentleman described amendment No. 6 as his favourite. Will he reconcile his favourite amendment, which has the wide definition of a house to include a garden, with amendment No. 4—perhaps not his favourite—which states that

“the building, or part of the building, in question is a house”?

Is he trying to convince the Committee that a building equals a garden or any other ground belonging to the house?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

In many cases it could. For example, one could have outbuildings or sheds. In the part of the world that I come from, we dream of gardens and long for garages, and the closest we get to broad acres with a summer house is looking in catalogues. We tend to have lock-ups and lean-tos, but I accept that our life in west London is not typical, and some people have sheds, gazebos, garden houses and summer houses in their gardens. [Interruption.] I am reminded sotto voce by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) that there are those who have decking and hot tubs. I have no idea what either of those things are, but were I to be in a hot tub on some decking, and someone imposed their physical presence on my person, I would wish to defend myself.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my question. I have no difficulty with an outhouse or a shed constituting a building, because that is clearly the case. My difficulty is that amendment No. 4 contradicts amendment No. 6. Does a building include a garden or any other ground; are the two interchangeable?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Lady. Not for the first time, I regret that I missed her Socratic dialogues and the colloquiums that she undoubtedly led when she was a lecturer at Queen’s.

My amendments are complementary. Amendment No. 4 seeks to confine the legislation to a house or a householder. Amendment No. 6, which is poor but my own, and something that I have a certain affection for, follows through the logic of what happens if a person has a subsidiary building, be it a shed, a lean-to or a lock-up. In anticipation of the inevitable legal confusion as to whether a lock-up 200 yd down the road counts as a person’s house, I have sought to make life easier for the courts by stating that the lock-up would have to be in the garden.

Within a garden, the whole magnificent domestic gamut, from gazebos to hot tubs, may be included, but we cannot anticipate what is likely to occur in the future. Fifteen years ago, nobody had ever heard of hot tubs, and in Northolt we still have not. However, there are those in Cleethorpes who speak of little else, so we have to include them. I hope that by defining the domain, I have addressed those issues. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes wishes to discuss the matter further with me, I will join her in a hot tub to do so.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

Although I am not proposing to join my hon. Friend in a hot tub, the points that he makes in his amendments are absolutely logical. Surely a garden or shed appertaining to property that an individual rents or owns should fall within the remit of the legislation. Are we saying that if an individual is attacked in their house, they would be covered by the legislation, but if they are two inches away in their garden, they would not be protected?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Yet again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I am slighted by her refusal to examine legislation in a communal hot tub. Her point is serious and touches on the point about a person fleeing from premises, which the hon. and gallant Member for Newark brought up in an earlier intervention. We have to consider boundaries and define them. In the absence of any other topographical definition, I have simply included that of the domain of the ground of the garden around the house. I think that that is sensible and logical. As I said earlier, I have not mentioned second homes, subsidiary homes or flats, and I have also not included au pairs in another amendment. There is a world of exceptions, but the core of the Bill is that it relates to the confidence of the nation’s citizens in their ability to defend themselves and, in turn, be defended by the law. I respect the hon. and gallant Member for Newark for seeking to do that, and I seek to assist him in that noble cause. Talking of noble causes, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

My hon. Friend’s approach is right and consistent in including a garden as part of a building. However, I ask him to give some thought to the difference between a back garden and a front garden. In most cases, if somebody comes on to a premises at the back garden, they should not be there—we can understand that. However, if someone comes into the front garden—perhaps an election campaigner delivering leaflets—we will assume that under common law they have a right to be there. Surely a householder should not be able to use the Bill as an excuse to assault somebody who has come up the front path. Is that a difference that my hon. Friend would take on board?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I have to say that the contrast between front and back gardens may be more apparent to those in the Elysian fields of east London and the broad sweeping green sward of Leyton. It is not a luxury that we enjoy in our part of the world. A front garden for us tends to be a few hundredweight of pea gravel and occasionally a bit of off-street parking.

Whether or not it is the possibility of an imminent election that has concentrated my hon. Friend’s mind, he has touched on an extremely important and relevant point. On Second Reading, I raised the case of someone who went to Milton road in Acton under the impression that they were in Milton road in Hanwell, which is where I live, with nearly disastrous results. That often happens in London, where there are many roads with the same name. We have a certain lack of originality—there are 122 Shakespeare roads and only one named after Karl Marx—and people quite often go to the wrong house. Whether we would evince much public sympathy if this were a protection of political canvassers Bill is a question that I leave to minds that are far greater than mine. I rather doubt that we would garner much support.

The underlying point is right. If the householder has the right to defend himself or herself because of a perception—here I return to proposed new subsection (1A)(b) and the infelicitous phrase

“ought to have been apparent to the person”—

we will be seeking to pry into the mind of the householder. A householder could see a Jehovah’s Witness, take a violent exception to their presence and then claim that they thought that they were under threat. How can we define what is in that person’s mind and what ought to have been apparent to them?

If someone of a physically challenging appearance and a confused demeanour came charging up to the front door, as in the example that my hon. Friend gave earlier, should we be giving householders carte blanche to blow their head off just because they do not like the look of them? I think not.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

We have been over this ground so many times. On Second Reading, it was made clear that anything that steps over the bounds and is grossly disproportionate would be illegal. The way in which the Bill is worded would not encourage any form of violence that is grossly disproportionate. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has been persuaded of that many times in the past and that he is seeking merely to make this process longer than it need be.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I was actually drawing my comments to a conclusion.

If, as is apparent, the Bill excludes in proposed new subsection (1A)(a) force that is grossly disproportionate, one almost wonders what its purpose is, because the existing law specifically excludes grossly disproportionate force. It allows a person, within the bounds of proportionality, to use any means, including lethal force, to defend themselves. Let us not forget that, even in the tiny percentage of cases investigated by the CPS, there are three instances of people being killed by householders and the case not even going to court. If the existing law is doing the job and the Bill simply reiterates the existing law and excludes the existing exclusions, one feels churlish but one almost wants to ask what the purpose of the Bill is.

Being a charitable soul and a great admirer of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I assume that the purpose behind the Bill is to ventilate an issue of great concern in an attempt to reassure people who are concerned. I cannot and never will speak on behalf of the Government, but I am sure that they are grateful that he is seeking to explain to people that this Government and previous Governments have provided that legal and legislative shield that people can use to protect themselves in their homes. If, God forbid, lethal force is used, the person in that house has that right to use that lethal force. As far as I am concerned, that is how the law stands and, if the Bill were passed, it would not make an enormous difference, partly because of the confusion that my amendments are designed to address, and partly because it excludes those grossly disproportionate acts that are already excluded from the law.

Amendment No. 7, which is perhaps not my favourite but is consequential on the earlier amendments, would simply include a new definition such that

“‘householder’, in relation to a house, means any person who occupies the house as his residence.”

That is specifically to address the issue of squatters and illegal occupiers. I freely admit—mea culpa—that it does not include the babysitter or the au pair. That is my fault. I should have included them, but I did not draft the Bill; I simply drafted the amendments.

My penultimate amendment, No. 8, would simply include holiday or other temporary residences. That is logical and sensible. If a person is attacked in their home, whether it is their second or first home is not as important as the fact that they are being attacked. The assault is the issue. I am not trying to wreathe this situation around with legal definitions of homes and residences. I simply seek to clarify the situation with these few brief amendments, which would, I hope, provide clarification and resolve the concern.

Amendment No. 9 is vital and has been touched on by a number of hon. Members. It says that this clause does not apply if the person occupying the property is a trespasser. I turned to the law for the definition of “trespasser” and found that, by and large, it simply means a person who enters or occupies premises without the express permission of the owner, householder or person who is in a legal position to give that authority. The amendment is extremely important. We have heard examples of people who occupy derelict or unoccupied properties and have raves and various parties, of which I know absolutely nothing but my teenage children know too much. Will we be giving them the right to defend themselves against, say, the bailiff who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, or the environmental health officer from the local council who is knocking on the door and saying, “Would you consider turning the noise down?” Will we say that such people have the legal right to plunge a bread knife into an environmental health officer? Again, I hope not. I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Newark would probably welcome this amendment, because it would be useful and aid his overall purpose.

I am given to understand that of all the words that I utter in this place, none are greeted with more warmth than, “in conclusion”. May I say, in conclusion, that I entirely respect the motivation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman? He has done the House a service in ventilating this issue, which is of concern throughout the land. I fear that the service that he has done has been more one of raising the matter for discussion and debate than of offering a legislative answer to a serious problem, but I respect him and thank him for the work that he has done.

Come what may, and whatever the result of this afternoon’s debate and earlier debates, we shall have discussed something that needed to be discussed. We shall have faced a problem that had to be faced. We shall be confronting the reality of the lack of confidence about this matter. It is my job, and the job of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the House, to try to restore that confidence, not just for the good of our constituents but for the good of all the people in the country.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cook, and I think that you are already guiding us fruitfully in a positive direction.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North has several times made the point that he does not criticise the motivation of the hon. Member for Newark in presenting the Bill. In that spirit of generosity, we should also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North and for Leyton and Wanstead for tabling amendments to help to clarify the Bill.

My hon. Friends have been as positive as they can in all that they have said to try to gain clarity about the practical application of the Bill. Of course, we must, in this place, move from a feeling or a philosophical point of view to something that will work in practice. I think that that is what my hon. Friends have sought.

The hon. Member for Newark knows the Government’s position on the Bill. It has been clear from the outset. We are opposed to his Bill—but not because we do not see burglary as an important issue or because we do not understand the fear and terror that people who are burgled feel. Far from it. We are against his Bill because we think that the law is already clear.

We accept, of course, that perhaps public perception of the operation of the law is not as clear as it should be. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister undertook, before Christmas, to carry out a review and to obtain clear views from those who operate the law—the Crown Prosecution Service and the police—about whether there is a problem with the law and a need for change. Their advice was clear and we are happy that the law is all right as it stands.

I need to make that point now to provide a context for my further remarks. I want to speak positively about my hon. Friends’ amendments, but I do not want that to lead the Committee or the hon. Member for Newark to believe that we have changed our position on the Bill overall.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I appreciate the points that my hon. Friend the Minister has made, particularly about the review of the law. However, will he ask the Law Officers to review sentences for burglary? Just because I, for one, like the Government, oppose the Bill—

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. The inquiry is not relevant to the point at issue today. We are not talking about sentencing. [Interruption.] We are not discussing, nor do we need to discuss, issues related to sentencing. The hon. Gentleman’s inquiry of the Minister is irrelevant and unnecessary.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

That exchange, which you may or may not want me to comment upon, Mr. Cook, illustrates the importance that we all attach to burglary. It is a serious offence and that should be the starting point for our deliberations.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am most grateful to the Minister for taking a second intervention so quickly—

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. May I ask the hon. Member to enunciate with a little more volume? I am partially deaf and it is difficult for me to hear what she says. If, as a result, I allow her to stray off the point, I shall be criticised by other members of the Committee.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I apologise, Mr. Cook. I was not aware of the difficulty.

The Minister introduced his remarks by referring to the Government’s clarification. He described it as being very clear. In a press release issued on 1 February 2005, the Home Secretary cited the Director of Public Prosecutions. He said:

“Ken McDonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has made it clear that householders will only be prosecuted if they use very excessive force in defending their home against intruders.”

However, in the same press release, he cited the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, as saying:

“The guidance makes clear that the law supports the right of householders to protect themselves, their families and their property against intruders by the use of reasonable force.”

Who is right: the DPP or the Attorney-General?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

It is not a matter of choice. The question is how to define what is reasonable. The problem for the public—this is possibly a misunderstanding—is that reasonable force can sometimes mean significant force. In certain circumstances, it could mean a householder taking action that resulted in a burglar losing his life. That could be reasonable. Clearly, it would need a major act to take someone’s life in that way, but it could still be reasonable. That is the what the guidance tries to make clear. It seeks to give more confidence to householders by saying that the law is on their side and that, when one is confined to one’s bedroom in the middle of the night, what is reasonable may mean that significant action can be taken. I do not read into the comments that the hon. Lady cited any difference or distinction between the views expressed.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister explain the distinction between “grossly disproportionate”, which appears in the Bill, and the words of the DPP—

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. I do not wish to curtail the breadth of debate, but the hon. Lady’s points are more pertinent to the debate on Government amendment No. 10. Perhaps we can leave her concerns until then. I ask the Minister to continue his response to the amendments under consideration.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I accept your guidance, Mr. Cook, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will be happy to leave it until then.

The Bill applies to a

“person who uses force ... on another who is in any building ... having entered as a trespasser or who is attempting so to enter”.

It can be seen from that clear wording that it contains no express requirement that the person using the force is in the building too. We have heard of examples—not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead—of the burglar being inside the property and the householder outside it. One of my hon. Friend’s main purposes is to clarify the position that both should be in the property. He gave an example of a householder shooting a gun into a property where a burglar was committing a crime.

I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Newark that the guidance allows for some pursuit of a burglar beyond the boundary of the property, but to go as far as the example given by my hon. Friend would not be acceptable. Once we get to such a situation, it will clearly be a matter for the police and law enforcement, and it will be for society to take action on behalf of the householder to bring the perpetrator to justice. My hon. Friend does us a service by clarifying the fact that we are talking about both the burglar and the householder being in the building.

I am not saying that the hon. Member for Newark intends there to be a lack of clarity. We can explore these matters in much finer detail in Committee, but we cannot allow to pass through this House a Bill that is not clear enough to be applicable, because it would lead to more confusion. He made it clear on Second Reading that his purpose was to clarify an area of the law in which the public lack confidence. It is therefore important to make the terms of his Bill as clear as possible. “Any person, any building” must be the starting point for our deliberations this afternoon, because the danger is that we will end up with different laws operating in different ways when similar acts are being committed.

Why should the Bill relate only to the householder in their house? What about someone in an office or an open space? We are talking about the same brutal attack or a sexual assault, and there should not be one rule for dealing with such an attack in the home and a different rule for dealing with it outside. If a young woman is viciously attacked and threatened with rape, she should be able to defend herself, vigorously and with reasonable force, in law, no matter where she is.

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

The Minister is being extremely helpful in grappling with a problem of definition. His comments bear not on the main thrust of the Bill, but on the definitions that we all want to get right, and he is very helpfully setting out how he believes they should be clarified. With all the resources of his vast Department, it is inconceivable that neither he nor his colleagues have thought about how to produce a sensible draft. Will he, at an appropriate point in his remarks, explain how the Bill could be amended to satisfy the discrepancies that he sets out?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

Ministers always try to bring light and clarity to the world of difficult problems, but the fundamental problem with this Bill—I beg the indulgence of the Chairman at this point, because this will be in our next debate—is that the definition offers a different test of what action can be taken and whether that action is grossly disproportionate or reasonable. Having one test for an action to defend oneself inside one’s home and a different test for the same action to defend oneself outside it will lead to more confusion in the law, not greater clarity.

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

Like the Minister, I do not want to pre-empt the next debate on Government new clause 10, but that is about the thrust of the Bill, and it addresses the point about whether existing law is satisfactory. We say that it is not, the Minister will argue that it is, and that will be the subject of the debate. However, he is dealing with a different point now, which is about the definition of those whom the Bill should encompass. I ask him the same question: will he, as he articulately advances his arguments, tell us how the drafting could be improved to respond to those points?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

The hon. Gentleman is being very kind to me, but I am obviously not being clear enough, as I have failed to explain that it would be impossible to draft the Bill so carefully and so tightly that it would work in practice, because it would rely on a definition of gross disproportionality rather than reasonableness. The test of reasonableness must be the test that applies, and it must therefore bring consistency to what happens inside someone’s home and what happens outside it.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

If it is impossible to define gross disproportionality, why has that been adopted in civil law?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

Again, I am not explaining myself very well. It is possible to define gross disproportionality, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s explanation of his definition of it to see how it differs from the definitions offered by other hon. Members. He is right that we applied a test of gross disproportionality in civil law under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to prevent a burglar—the offender—from claiming damages from a householder if they suffer as a consequence of their illegal activity.

We have the test of gross disproportionality. To apply it in these circumstances would produce so many anomalies and difficulties, which I shall try to outline, that it would not work in practice. My real concern is that it would add further confusion to the public mind on the matter. We seek greater clarity so that people can defend themselves with confidence and know that they will be backed up by the law when they defend their home, their loved ones and their property, which they have every right to do. The hon. Member for North Down was right to say that the home is a holy place, and the law should respect that. There is nothing in the test of reasonableness that detracts from that sanctity.

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

May I make one more attempt to persuade the Minister that there is a way through this? He has again said that there is a difference between gross disproportionality and reasonableness, which will be the subject of our next debate. The issue is the groups of people to whom the subject of that debate will apply. He says that the current definition is confusing. For my part, I am prepared to accept that the Bill may not include every possible group in its terminology, because of drafting difficulties.

I do not want the best to be the enemy of the good, and it may well be that we can settle on a broad definition that covers most of the people to whom my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark is rightly seeking to bring clarity. That is why I ask, for the third time, whether the Minister can present a form of words that meets that definitional point before we get on to whether the current law is adequate in defending whoever needs defending.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I am afraid that I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I do not understand how I can improve something that is fundamentally flawed. Perhaps it is possible to improve the Bill slightly. My hon. Friends have attempted to do that by tabling their amendments, and I appreciate the fact that they have done so. However, the fact is that the Bill applies to any person and any building.

As the Bill stands, it does not matter whether we are talking about a home, an office or a commercial premises, and it does not matter whether someone is the householder or not. My greatest concern is the distinction between an action taken to defend oneself in a public place or open space, such as a park or somewhere that is not a building, when a person may be faced by a terrible and life-threatening challenge. They should be able to take the same action in their house as outside, and the Bill would sow confusion and draw a different test for what happens in the home from what applies outside.

Faced with that sort of challenge, individuals should be able to defend themselves with the greatest possible vigour in order to protect their lives, their families and their property. I do not want to cause any confusion between inside and outside. The hon. Gentleman will have further opportunities to test me as to whether I can develop ways of improving the legislation. He may table amendments that seek to do that, and perhaps we will have the opportunity to debate them.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I agree with the Minister’s position and his response to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. Whether inside or outside, the law should be comparable, and it should be very similar, if not the same. If there was to be a change, should there not be a complete review of the self-defence laws? If there were a separate law in relation to burglary and householders, as the Bill proposes, surely it should have an emphasis on self-defence that would be the same as it is for others in an outside environment?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

It might help my hon. Friend to know that although the Government are not undertaking a review of self-defence, we will be considering self-defence as part of the review of murder announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That will be an important deliberation. Clearly, self-defence that results in somebody else losing their life is a dramatic step, but there are circumstances in which it can be justified. The review will consider that.

Andrew Mitchell (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

The Minister rather beguilingly tried to suggest that I might wish to bring forward amendments to seek to clarify what he and his Department are unable to clarify. At least, that is what I think he was saying. May I reassure him on that point? I have no amendments to make to the Bill. It is an excellent Bill. My constituents and, I submit, his constituents want to see the Bill on the statute book for all the reasons that my hon. and gallant Friend has given. I have no intention of tabling any amendments.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

That is obviously the hon. Gentleman’s choice. He was asking me to table amendments to clarify the position. As I failed to persuade him, I thought he might have sought to table amendments to bring the clarity he seeks. My constituents, like his, regard burglary and the ability to defend oneself when under attack as very important. That is why I am at pains to tell the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and all our constituents that the law is on their side. When faced with this kind of challenge, this affront to their private home and even to—

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. I pay tribute to the Minister’s patience and the patience of the rest of the Committee, but we keep returning to the Second Reading debate when we should be concentrating on amendments. I admonish hon. Members who seek to take us back there. It is needlessly absorbing time that should be spent on the amendments.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I plead guilty to the Second Reading offence, although I am drawn back to it by interventions.

I hope that I do not disappoint or upset my hon. Friend, the Member for Leyton and Wanstead but there are some difficulties with his amendment. He is a generous person and I am sure he will reflect on them. For example, the father whose children are at risk of attack within the home when he is outside the home would not be assisted by my hon. Friend’s amendment. He would be outside: his children would be inside. We may have to find a way of making it clear that he would need to be able to take some action to defend his loved ones. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that it would be rather odd if the father seeking to protect his children were placed in a different situation because he happened to be outside the home than if he were inside the home. That clearly illustrates again that even though my hon. Friend has tried to bring clarity here, it leaves some difficult areas that we would still need to address.

I have already touched on the situation of a young woman who, under the promoter’s proposals, would be expected to use a different level of force to defend herself if she were attacked in a park than if she were attacked in a home. That seems quite wrong and is something that my hon. Friends have tried to address. Law enforcement officers and the courts would have to apply the old test of reasonableness to govern the degree of force if she were attacked in the park or an open space, but the new test if she were trying to stop a burglar in a home where no individual was directly under threat. That is a clear anomaly that my hon. Friends are trying to iron out. At present the law applies the same test of reasonable force in all such situations. I want to argue strongly that that test should remain. We will have further opportunities to do that in the next debate.

I turn now to amendments Nos. 4 to 9 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North. The issues that he has covered were raised on Second Reading by other Members who are not members of this Committee. In doing so they exposed some of the many loopholes in the Bill. A particularly stark loophole is that although the title of the Bill includes the words “householder protection”, the Bill itself does not refer to householders and is therefore not limited to householders. It is any person in any building.

I have already made it clear that the Government are still opposed to the Bill in principle. It is unnecessary and based on a misconception that the way to clarify public understanding is to change the law, rather than to improve public understanding of what the law allows. We must have consistency; we cannot allow a situation in which the law would operate differently for a strong person who was in a position to defend himself from how it would operate for a weaker person. In the end, we all rely on good, accessible law enforcement, which can come to the aid of a householder, or anybody, in distress. That is why the additional police officers that we have been able to resource are so important.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Is the Minister aware of any statutory definition of the term “householder”?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

As I stand here now, I do not. I shall seek further advice on it.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

To help the Minister, I cannot find any statutory definition of householder and that is why the Bill is drafted as it is. It continues to make sense for it to be any person and any building.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

In the public mind, a householder would be somebody who was occupying premises and who had lived there for a period of time, even if they did not own the property—perhaps even if they did not technically lease or rent the property. We discussed earlier whether it would extend to the babysitter. I shall seek further advice and come back to the hon. Lady. If the hon. Gentleman, who has assiduously researched the background to the Bill, has not been able to find a definition, I take comfort from the fact that I am in good company in not being able to respond to the hon. Lady, who has considerable knowledge. I am sure she will add some further comments to help us. I suspect that in asking the question, she either knows, or does not know—

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I have a high regard for the Minister. The whole point of not having a definition of a householder in the Bill is surely because it is not intended to be exhaustive. I had hoped that the Bill would cover the person in occupation of the house, whether that was a visitor or a nanny. That is the point in having the wide term “a householder”.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

Yes. That is the difficulty, because the way that the Bill has been portrayed publicly is that it is specifically about the householder. In reality, as the Bill applies, it is not so narrowly defined. Therefore, it moves away from the position of the householder to any person, which reduces the weight of the Bill.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am surprised at what the Minister is saying. He and I engaged in several media debates and presentations, as did another member of the Committee. I made a particular point, all the time, of referring to a householder or a shop owner, and every time I said the word, including in the media debates and on Second Reading, I was assiduous in making it clear that the Bill did not apply just to what we might commonly assume to be a householder.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

But it would require somebody to be in a building, therefore there is still a discrepancy between the person in their home and the person who is outside their home, even though the attack or affront to them may be just as grave and just as severe. There are two tensions: whether it is a householder or any occupant of any building at any time, and the difference between activity in the home and activity in an open space, not a building, where the action may be very severe.

Reference has been made to how often there have been prosecutions in such cases, and we are aware of only a few in which a person has been prosecuted for using force against an intruder. We cannot be precise about the numbers because they are not recorded in a way that helps us to identify the specific cases; we have had debates about precisely how many, but there are very few. The Director of Public Prosecutions has made it clear—the hon. Lady referred to some of what he said—and I will quote him:

“We routinely refuse to prosecute those reacting in the heat of the moment to finding intruders within their homes. So householders who have killed burglars in this situation have not been prosecuted. Householders who have shot burglars have not been prosecuted. Householders who have struck burglars on the head, fracturing their skulls, have not been prosecuted.”

Given the sensible and sympathetic way the courts and the police have interpreted the concept of “reasonable force” the Bill is unnecessary and a retrograde step. I emphasise that I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for his concern about burglary—both the offence and the plight of the householder—but we have an absolute assurance from the Director of Public Prosecutions that only in the most extreme of circumstances would there be any question of a prosecution taking place.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Does the Minister accept that although very few people are actually prosecuted at the end of a long trawl by the Director of Public Prosecutions, householders in the widest sense of the term have an agonising wait to know whether they will face prosecution? The issue is not how many are actually prosecuted in the end, it is the trauma caused to those who do not know because the law at present is uncertain. Does the Minister accept that point?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

I do not accept that the law is uncertain. However, I accept that the householder—the person who has had the crime committed against them—is in a very vulnerable position and should be treated with the utmost courtesy and respect and given support by the law enforcement agencies and others, including organisations such as Victim Support, that can provide help. One of the reassuring things included in the leaflet published by the Crown Prosecution Service and the police is that they intend in future to ensure that any case of that kind would be handled by a very senior and experienced person. We would all deprecate the kind of long delays in such cases that have been highlighted by the hon. Member for Newark in debates and elsewhere, and we should seek to minimise those delays. Of course, in any case in which there has been a burglary there will have to be a police investigation, because a crime has been committed, but the person who has been a victim of that crime—

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. May I seek your guidance? You will be aware—your comments from the Chair have clearly indicated your awareness— that although this is a serious issue that requires proper debate, Labour Members appear to have been extending their remarks beyond what would normally be necessary to deal with a group of amendments such as this, to the extent that nearly two and a half hours have passed in this first sitting. The business of the House today is complicated, and 10 different votes are due at 7 o’clock, which will take some considerable time out of this evening. The Opposition suspect that the Government are seeking in some way to manipulate this debate for political purposes, either to ensure that it is delayed or to force it to be extended beyond the normal hours. May I seek your guidance on what happens in the event of a prolonged gap at 7 o’clock? Will the debate be postponed to another day and, if so, when? Would that be immediately or—

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. We are debating a private Member’s Bill. As such, it is not susceptible to the machinations of the usual channels. I must allow hon. Members to express their views while they remain within the framework of good order. At the moment, the Minister is trying to give the Government’s view on various aspects of the amendments before the Committee. The fact that it is taking time is largely the result of interventions and questions. To that extent, some of the observations expressed about the Labour Government’s view are slightly out of place.

If we are to continue, perhaps we should suspend the sitting at 5.15 pm for 45 minutes, in order for hon. Members, including myself, to gain sustenance—something to bite and something to sip. At that time, the Committee may be of a mind to seek a sitting on another day as we are compelled to cease our deliberations at 7 pm. As we do not have the facilities of the usual channels, it is very much up to the members of the Committee to come to an agreement among themselves.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. I am a newer Member of the House and not sure of the procedures that apply, but if the Committee should seek to adjourn till another day, would it normally have some choice over what that day should be and can you give us any sense of how quickly one can obtain a slot?

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

The Member in charge of the Bill, the hon. Member for Newark, has the opportunity under the rules to make suggestions to the Committee. It is up to the Committee to consider them and to agree or disagree with them. If the Committee disagrees, hon. Members will have to come up with an alternative—an amendment.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

As you say, Mr. Cook, that is one area in which the usual channels do not operate. In a spirit of co-operation, I shall try to answer questions and respond to whatever comments are made.

I return to the amendments in hand. The Bill would cover people who use force to protect a building that does not belong to them, such as a shop or a warehouse. For example, it would apply to the use of force on trespassers by security guards in commercial premises. They could act against burglars.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

Would the legislation apply to a bouncer in a nightclub?

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

If the bouncer was standing outside the building, the legislation as drafted would not apply because, as my hon. Friend has been at pains to tell us, according to his amendment the person doing the defending and the person doing the attacking would both need to be in the building. The bouncer outside would certainly not be covered, although if we return to the Theft Act—

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

1968.

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

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.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am conscious, Mr. Cook, that I have only a few minutes before the suspension that you rightly ordered. I start by welcoming you to the Chair. I also thank the Minister for all the work that he has put into the Bill; for presenting an extremely reasonable, reasoned and fair case; and for seeking not to extend the time that he took to argue his case. I also thank everyone else, particularly those on my own Benches. As you are aware, Mr. Cook, it falls to me, as the private Member who introduced the Bill, to find those for the list.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

Pressed men.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I hear the words “pressed men” from behind me, and I should say that I am particularly grateful to the Labour Members on the Committee. Clearly, I have no control over members of other parties, but the hon. Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and for North Durham (Mr. Jones) both volunteered at short notice to help take this important Bill through the Committee, joining all the other volunteers who had come forward. I therefore thank them in particular. The hon. Member for North Down has also been unstinting in her help and in the clarity that she has brought to these issues, drawing on her experience and background.

The niceties over, I shall endeavour to concentrate my comments on the amendments. If I may make so bold—this is, of course, no criticism of you, Mr. Cook—I am conscious of the fact that the debate has strayed endlessly onto issues that we are likely to debate under other amendments. At this point, therefore, I shall deliberately not pick up some of the Minister’s comments in particular because, with the greatest respect, we may rely on them being addressed more properly later in the debate.

I want now to focus on amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 9. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead produced a serious of comments that I found extraordinarily difficult to follow. I say that with huge respect, because I like to think that he and I are friends, and we have certainly discussed these issues in the margin previously. His comments were particularly fallacious, given that the Minister criticised amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and I shall pick up on the very arguments that the Minister used.

I think that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead was trying to suggest in the amendments—with respect, I must repeat that the wording is not easy to follow—that the Bill should apply only to those who are in the same building at the same time, face to face, tooth to tooth and hand to hand. The hon. Gentleman used the word “vigilante” which, again, I find extremely difficult to understand. I should underline a point that I have made before: one reason why I decided to bring this private Member’s Bill before the House is because I have witnessed a huge amount of debate in my area of Newark and Retford as a result of the Tony Martin case. I fear, therefore, that words such as “vigilante” are desperately emotive. Unlike the Barras family, who have been deprived of their son, Mr. Fearon’s family, thank God, still have a son to love and cherish, despite the circumstances and despite what one might think of his conduct. If I were to put the word “vigilante” into that excellent organ the Newark Advertiser, I fear, given the background and environment from which I draw my case, that we would be howled at and ridiculed.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

Does not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the wording of the Bill gives scope for vigilantes? It uses the phrase:

“Where a person uses force in the prevention of a crime or in the defence of persons or property on another”.

It does not talk about a householder. A householder could bring in someone to act as a vigilante.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that that is right. I do not want to detain the Committee by defining the word “vigilante”, but the fact remains that if a person—whether a vigilante or someone who has been hired as a hit-man or something of that ilk—acts improperly, going beyond the provision of gross disproportionality, they will be tried under the Bill. If they are tried successfully, they will go to prison.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am most grateful for the break. I have no doubt that you enjoyed it as much as I did, Mr. Cook. I have a few remaining comments about amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I had almost finished criticising them—I will not say condemning them because that would be unfair—on the basis of the points already made by the Minister.

If the amendments are accepted, it will be impossible for a father tending to plants in his garden or walking the dog late at night, who detected a burglar while his children were inside the house, to enjoy the protection of the Bill. That is a straightforward case, but let me go further. Sometimes, my wife and son, when he is back from school, are inside the house, and I am outside as night falls trying to shoot rabbits with the only firearm that I now handle, namely, an air rifle. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead made a good point. If I detected a burglar or intruder inside the house and, for the sake of argument, peered through the window, believed that the person was robbing my house or looking thoroughly unpleasant, stuck a shotgun through the window and fired at the man or woman, I would have acted grossly disproportionately and would be liable to prosecution under the Bill as I have written it. Therefore, the two amendments are needless and would detract from the strength of the Bill.

The various suggestions made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North are more complex and pose a more difficult problem. We know each other well, and I am conscious that the issue of householder protection has caused him difficulty in the past—I shall not needle him about that because it has already been done and it is improper.

The title of the Bill caused me a problem. It had to make sense and to attract the public’s understanding. The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, which was flippant but based on rational thought, was that the Bill should have a long and complex title to cover all eventualities. We did not go for that, because it would not have aided or abetted my aim of making the Bill understood to the voting public. That is why “householder protection” is in the short title of the Bill. However, the point has already been made that it would cover not only householders, but any person in any building such as, I would hope, shop owners and babysitters. Although I understand that some of the amendments are intended to be genuinely helpful and to throw light on the way in which the Bill has been drafted, I will end up rejecting them all.

It is clear that, in essence, amendment No. 4 would emasculate proposed new subsection (1A) by adding paragraphs (a) and (b). As I said earlier, inherent in the cause and design of the Bill is protection for householders and shop owners. At no stage before the Committee stage have I referred to anything other than that. If amendment No. 4 were to stand, the Bill would not cover shop owners, and that would not make sense. Furthermore, without rehearsing arguments that we have already covered, it contradicts amendment No. 6, which I shall come on to in the fullness of time.

In amendment No. 5, the hon. Gentleman attempted to define the meaning of “house”. The hon. Member for North Down made the point much better than I can—I am no lawyer, heaven forfend—that it is already clearly defined in the Theft Act 1968. Furthermore, the burglary and aggravated burglary section of “Archbold”, a tome from which I never thought I would quote, defines “building”. If we can make no reference to existing law, if every detail must be written down, redefined and spelled out, why do we have laws, and why did we take the language from criminal law when we were drafting the Bill? The definition in chapter 21-117 states:

“Any building or part of a building may be the subject of burglary; also an inhabited vehicle or vessel whether the occupier is there or not at the time of the offence. This includes houseboats and caravans which are regularly inhabited even if empty at times.”

Therefore, “Archbold” and all the comments contained therein make amendment No. 5 redundant. We have a clear definition of “building”, and it would be otiose to spell it out again in the Bill.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

The Bill seeks to amend the Criminal Law Act 1967, and we are referring to the Theft Act 1968. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis and definitions, but would not it have been simpler to say in the Bill that the definition of “house” is the one in the 1968 Act? Had he done that, we could have saved ourselves the problem about what would happen if it were a public building, an office or any of the other myriad and marvellous structures that we have created before our eyes this afternoon. Had he thought of doing that?

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, as always. He is a simple sailor, I am a simple soldier. We understand each other in straightforward English as we speak it. Neither of us, I am glad to say, has need frequently to refer to lawyers.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Let us not tempt fate.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

Not yet.

However, with respect, the law is not interpreted by simple people such as us. Lawyers, whether barristers or solicitors, will understand the Bill’s phrasing in a way that I do not. I do not mean to sound over-simplistic. It would be wrong and a lie for me to say that I sat down with my pen behind my ear and prepared the Bill without expert advice—of course I did not. I wish I could, but I do not have the talent, experience or skill. However, I am reliably informed by the several QCs who assisted me in drafting the Bill that its wording takes in everything that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. If he wishes to probe me further, I fear that I am at the absolute limit of my understanding of legal language and could therefore attempt only to repeat exactly what I have said. Moving on, unless the hon. Gentleman wishes to probe further—

Mr. Poundindicated dissent.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

I have already referred to the fact that I think that amendment No. 6, to an extent, contradicts amendment No. 4. I have spent more time perhaps than I should skulking around bushes, gardens, ditches and the out-houses of other people’s houses. It is clear to me that the ability to misinterpret actions in gardens and similar areas is much greater than inside a house for no other reason than that, if darkness reigns and someone is in a garden, it is unlikely that they will be illuminated quickly and that that their intentions will become clear quickly. Inside a house, it is much more likely that a light will be put on or a torch will be shone on them.

I reject amendment No. 6 not only because of the contradiction that has already been noted but because of the fact that we deliberately wish to avoid any misinterpretation. For instance, a party of army cadets might rightly and properly cross a garden by mistake, armed, in the middle of the night. Their intentions would be entirely honourable. It is a wholly different matter to try to legislate for what goes on in a garden, a field, a meadow or whatever. That is why we have crafted the Bill, and I use the phrase advisedly, as carefully as we have.

We have already touched on amendment No. 7. With the greatest of respect to the hon. Member for Ealing, North, this is the one amendment that made me scratch my head, and it is the reason that I questioned him so tediously and closely about exactly what he thought of the examples of the shop owner and the babysitter. The Bill takes both categories into account. I know that the hon. Member for North Down will feel strongly on the subject, but one of the biggest examples of crime in my constituency is the breaking into places such as pharmacies and chemists, where drugs are kept, by those who steal them to sell or to use themselves.

I have had any amount of representation from shop owners that the Bill should cover their premises. That is why I have been so careful to point out that this is a householders and shop owners protection Bill, although I can quite understand the criticisms. If I agree to amendment No. 7, we will not cover shop owners. We will not cover babysitters. There are a host of other examples, and I fully appreciate that.

Mercifully, my son is well beyond the stage where he needs a babysitter, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a young son. If a babysitter in his house is charged in loco parentis with the protection, well-being and general good of his child, should that babysitter not be effected the same protection as any one of us and, indeed, as the hon. Gentleman? They should. That is why I must reject amendment No. 7.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

If we were to adopt the amendment, does my hon. Friend not agree that it would leave housesitters—that category of people increasingly used by people who go on holiday or are posted away to look after a premise, but who technically do not occupy the house as their residence—open to prosecution? They would be there as anyone working in that house would be, like an au pair or a babysitter, and would be unable to carry out the job of protecting the premises as they had been employed to.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

As usual, my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point that had totally eluded me. In my constituency, we have a number of Royal Air Force married quarters. I do not know whether it is a good or a bad thing, but the RAF is heavily used on operations at the moment. Its pilots and air crew are incessantly abroad fighting, in my belief, for a good cause. He is quite right: those married quarters are frequently left with housesitters or quarters-sitters—whatever we call them. If we agree to amendment No. 7, those housesitters, babysitters and shop owners will not have the protection that I hope that the Bill will offer.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

That is interesting. The hon. Gentleman has posited two different sets of circumstances, one involving a commercial premises and the other involving a housesitter or babysitter. The latter deserves further consideration because I doubt that there is anyone in Committee who disagrees with him when he says that we should include those people who occupy premises by express permission of the householder. However, he has chosen to define his Bill in terms of the motive that the person has for entering the building. He has used the word “trespasser”. A person does not trespass when they go into a shop, but they could still assault the shop owner. Does he not realise that a lack of definition—if not a lack of clarity—creates problems? Shop owners will not be protected because the hon. Gentleman defines entry in terms of trespass.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

Again, I am no lawyer, but I believe that, if a shop has an open door—I am looking for some help—clearly, the shop owner is inviting a person on to their property, albeit without having to articulate that. The fact that the door is open is enough. However, if an offence is then caused on that property, I believe that that can be defined as trespass.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am happy to assist the hon. Gentleman. We have spent quite a bit of time talking about the fact that there is some confusion over whether the word “building” is too wide in its definition because it covers shops. It is well established in law already that, when it comes to sentencing, there is a distinction between burglaries of dwellings and burglaries of non-dwellings, meaning shops. I am repeating myself slightly, because I have already referred to the practice direction, which was printed in 2002. There are separate guidelines for sentencing those involved with burglaries of dwellings and burglaries of non-dwellings.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am awfully grateful to the hon. Lady. I hope that her intervention throws more light on the subject than I could, with my limited background in and understanding of these subjects.

We have already touched on amendment No. 8. We are talking about any person in any house and that includes those who might be in temporary residence in a house. I have dealt with that enough already. The situation is similar with amendment No. 9. I hate to quote from this tome but in “Archbold” on page 1953, chapter 21-116—

Paul Goggins (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East)

The hon. Gentleman is enjoying this.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

No, I am not. I am loth to pretend to be something that I am not—although that seems to involve me 24 hours a day at the moment.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Does that apply to your politics?

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

It is up to the hon. Gentleman to judge.

“Archbold” defines trespass and entry as a trespasser in some detail. It states that

“a person is a trespasser for the purposes of section 9(1)(b) ... if he enters premises of another knowing that he is entering in excess of the permission that has been given to him, or being reckless whether he is entering in excess of the permission that has been given to him to enter, providing the facts are known to the accused which enable him to realise that he is acting in excess of the permission given or that he is acting recklessly as to whether he exceeds that permission”.

That is sufficient for the jury to decide that the person is in fact a trespasser. The hon. Gentleman can probe me as much he wishes. All I can say to him and to others on the Government Benches is that I have been given this advice by a series of extremely well versed, knowledgeable QCs, who understand these things better than me. That is the definition of trespass. If we try to define it in any other way in the Bill, that will detract from the Bill. Amendment No. 9 is therefore unnecessary and I will seek to reject it.

You have been very patient, Mr. Cook, listening to my long-winded explanation of why we will resist the amendments. There are other debates to come, and I do not wish to trespass on them. The fact remains that with this Bill I have enjoyed a huge amount of sensible co-operation from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I honestly believe that the Bill enjoys the support of 90 per cent. of the population. That is what the polls tell us anyway.

I do not seek to gain party political advantage. I seek to reassure ordinary citizens that they will be protected by the law, and to deter burglars from entering houses, dwellings or any building. If we can reassure and deter, it should lead to a decrease in the sort of bloody affray that we saw in Norfolk some years ago, which has left scars upon a Norfolk farmer and a Newark lad. If we can achieve that, we will have taken steps in the right direction for all parties and for any party that ends up in government.

Although I respect the reasoning and the thoughts behind the amendments, I ask the hon. Gentlemen who tabled them not to press them to a vote, so that the Bill can continue unamended.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

The hon. Member for Newark has asked whether the amendment can be withdrawn. Before I come on to that, it was very interesting, in quoting at length “Archibold”—[Hon. Members: “Archbold.”] That is interesting, because that name is very similar to that of a horse running in next week’s Champion Hurdle at Cheltenham. Perhaps it is an omen and I should get a few bob on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and the Minister pointed out, as I tried to do in my contribution, that there were many anomalies and flaws in the Bill. I do not want to repeat those, Mr. Cook, as I can see that you are getting a bit irritated. The Minister said that there were difficulties with my amendment. He mentioned the point about the father who is outside and the children who are inside the building. That was repeated by the hon. Member for Newark, and I take that point on board. It shows the complexity of and difficulty in making the Bill coherent.

We could argue that the Bill itself has similar difficulties. The father could be anywhere, but the burglar who is frightening the children could be escaping and off the premises, so that would create difficulties with the Bill as it stands. My amendments were probing, and if those or similar matters need exploring we will wait to see if there is an opportunity on Report. On that basis I am prepared to withdraw my amendments.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I found sitting in Committee very educative this afternoon. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newark, who promoted the Bill, for the generosity and good spirit with which he has pressed his proposed legislation. I am grateful also to the number of distinguished members of the Committee who have intervened, particularly the hon. Member North Down, whose comments have been extremely helpful—I dread receiving the bill. However, there is no vast difference between the members of the Committee.

My amendments were intended to enlighten rather than destroy. We do not disagree on the subject. In the certain knowledge that we will discuss it further, and in recognition of the decency shown by the hon. and gallant Member for Newark, who clearly seeks to reassure rather than frighten, and to address an issue of fear throughout the land, with your permission and that of the Committee, Mr. Cook, I shall not seek to press my amendments to a vote.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.