| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bacon: I will not give way as other Members wish to speak. Both hon. Members have acknowledged that there is a problem, but they have not suggested what they would do to combat it. I believe that it is for the House of Commons to acknowledge the public concern, which is out there, and respond to that by considering the Bill in detail in Committee. That is what the public want.
2.2 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): We have had a lively debate in which some strong and deeply-held views have been expressed. I thank the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) for bringing the matter to the House, because there is no doubt that the difficult and challenging cases that have been referred to have produced a deep unease among the public. That led to the "Today" programme's ill-fated exercise, much to the embarrassment of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). That embarrassment takes some generating.
The key issue, which we all understand, is how the principle of reasonable force and proportionality applies in such difficult cases. I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the deep problems in basing particular legislation on one or two hard cases, whether
30 Apr 2004 : Column 1174
that means the Tony Martin case or not. The hon. Gentleman properly drew attention to the Kenneth Noye case, which most of us consider outrageous in the opposite sense.
It is not only the question of the hard cases that makes it difficult to legislate. I am thinking of soft cases, such as a drunk old man staggering across my open-plan garden and knocking over a gnome. If I opened my door and he said, "Sorry mate, it's the wrong house," whether I was reasonable or not, I would be entitled under the Bill to go out there and stab, strangle, shoot, maim or kill him, because it covers "any act done". I suppose if a drunk young woman were involved in such an incident, I would be entitled to carry out an indecent assault on her. Perhaps the milkman might wake me with a start one morning, and I mistakenly assumed that it was an intruder.
While the issue is one of great importance, we must recognise that the Bill's framework is seriously and dangerously flawed. I was a bit disappointed in the speech from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It was flexible, as it contradicted absolutely the speeches he has made in numerous Friday debates on private Members' Bills about the need to be careful, proportionate and considered in respect of any proposed legislation. That reminded me that he was a member of the Government when the dangerous dogs legislation was passed.
There is a kernel of real usefulness in clause 3, although not in its present form. There must surely be a complete defence open to any householder or owner against a claim by an intruder who injures himself penetrating someone's property. Perhaps the Minister may like to comment on how that may be dealt with.
I want to move on quickly. We have had a worthwhile debate. Some key issues have been raised. Some fundamental matters affecting the basis of our society are at the root of those issues: the sanctity of our homes and property, the rights of the innocent and of the guilty, too, because we live in a civilised society that recognises both.
Having said all that, I think that the Bill should not be supported by the House. It does not even protect owners because, as one hon. Member pointed out, if one happens to be squatting in the house, one would have all the powers of an owner. It certainly has not got the rest right either. Therefore, with great regret, I say that I believe that it should not receive its Second Reading today.
2.5 pm
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): I will be brief because we need to hear from the Minister and to vote before 2.30. I know that the whole House will wish to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has done the House a great service in bringing the Bill before us and in offering the House a full and articulate explanation of its purposes and motives. He described the Bill as essentially about the home. The home is deeply evocative. It is where we return at the end of the day and at the end of all our days, for it is often where the dying choose to go in their last hours.
30 Apr 2004 : Column 1175
The home is the place that Robert Browning considered when abroad: "Oh to be in England now that April's there".
Mr. Pound: "Whoever wakes in England sees, some morning, unaware"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is not merely intervening from a sedentary position—he is reciting poetry from a sedentary position.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure that either hon. Gentleman is quoting it correctly.
Mr. Hayes: Your advice is always welcome, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said that he sought to defend the home and he is right to do so, for our home has a sanctity, a special place in our hearts. Indeed, Dr. Johnson said
"To be happy at home is the ultimate result of all ambition".
"It is when we pass our own private gate, and open our own secret door, that we step into the land of the giants."
Therefore, it is right and proper that we should defend the home.
I wish to say in the plainest possible terms that the good people of our nation are tired of a criminal justice system that appears, at least, to favour the lawless at the expense of the lawful and that, at the same time, has done untold damage to popular faith in the rule of law. The truth is that many of Tony Martin's neighbours, many of the people of Norfolk and of neighbouring Lincolnshire, many of the people of this country were essentially sympathetic to him, but they dare not express that sympathy because of a fear of a politically correct establishment. Because of that establishment, their passion dare not speak its name. Their passion is a Christian sense of right and wrong and a recognition of the malevolence of evil men and evil deeds.
The Bill seeks to some degree to rebalance the scales in favour of the lawful and to some degree to allow people to do what I suspect every hon. Member present in the Chamber today and those observing our proceedings would do if they were genuinely fearful for their home or their family, and that is to take whatever action they deem to be necessary to defend those special and sacred things.
Mr. Pound: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept what he is proposing is a counsel of despair? Would not it be better for us as a House to support the police and not seek to bypass them?
Mr. Hayes:
The rule of law depends on proper authority. The hon. Gentleman, who is a great student of these things, knows that. I do not make a case from the Dispatch Box for people taking the law into their own hands as a matter of course, but if the hon. Gentleman were faced with an imminent danger in his own home, he would not first turn to the telephone to dial the police. He would take action, and that is true of
30 Apr 2004 : Column 1176
any reasonable person. The Bill takes account of the burden of proof to mitigate the excesses that might result from an over-zealous pursuit of the defence of the innocent under attack.
The Bill, which seeks to amend the law so that people acting in defence of persons or property would, in specified circumstances, be exempted from both criminal and civil liability, strikes an important chord. We wait to hear the Government's response. They will understand that the Bill represents immense popular pressure for change. It is important that we once again re-affirm people's faith in the fairness, decency and justice of our system of law, for if we do not do so, that system will gradually be diluted and damaged by that lack of faith. It relies on the Government listening to what has been said today and to the people of England.
I hope we will not hear a cry about civil liberty—liberty was used as a justification for "the terror" in France and as an excuse for slave traders in England. It is a matter not of civil liberties, but of people taking liberties. There is no freedom worth having if one does not have the freedom from fear, and there is no worse fear than fear of invasion of one's special place, one's own home, and the resultant danger to one's family. I wait to hear the Minister's comments. I hope she will understand the passion with which the Bill has been brought, and the very strong feeling of the many people of all parties that lay behind it.
2.11 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |