---

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): We have had an interesting debate on the Bill and we have ranged widely. I thank the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) for introducing the Bill.

We all recognise the legitimate concerns of householders, particularly those who might be isolated or vulnerable and far from help. They might at any time find themselves called upon to defend themselves or their property against intruders. That concern is real, and we take such concerns seriously. As has been said, it is a commonplace that an Englishman's home is his castle, as is a woman's, and we all have a legitimate right and expectation that we should be able to feel safe in our own homes. But there have been recent cases that have led people to ask themselves, "If I come across an intruder and try to defend myself, could I find myself on the wrong side of the law?" We recognise the public concern about that.

That is why, in what the hon. Member for North Thanet described as a pop-idol approach to politics, such a substantial proportion of the respondents to the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme poll supported the Bill. We, too, have received a sizeable number of representations on the subject, so we know how concerned the public are and we need to address those concerns. However, the Bill is not the answer.

Some of those who have written to the Home Office do not suggest changing the law or allowing householders the freedoms that the Bill would allow them. Rather, they called for more detailed guidance or rules on how they might lawfully react when defending themselves or their property. The example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) of the pub landlord who was worried about whether he
 
30 Apr 2004 : Column 1177
 
could properly prevent a crime illustrates that. Clearly, some of the public concern stems from the fact that people are uncertain about the state of the law, rather than from the belief that the law is not enough to protect them.

We have issued a booklet entitled "Be Safe, Be Secure", which is a practical guide to crime prevention. It was updated last year and covers all aspects of personal safety at home, including how to deal with intruders. It covers the law of self-defence, including the underlying principles, and it is available from crime reduction officers and neighbourhood watch schemes and on the internet. I understand, of course, that faced with a burglar, the householder is not going to flip to the right page in his booklet. Nevertheless, we need to inform people better about the present state of the law. The present state of the law differs from both the popular perception and from what some hon. Members have implied today. We must bear it in mind that each case is different and that guidelines are needed to set out general principles, and we will see whether we can offer further help.

Mr. Leigh: Let us say that an intruder enters my house, I seek to defend my house with a baseball bat and I hit him across the head. He falls to the ground, but tries to rise up again, so I hit him again and he dies. Would I be liable to prosecution?

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman may or may not be liable to prosecution, but he would have the defence of self-defence, and I shall come to exactly what that means and implies. The issue is important, and we must be clear about it, because this debate has not clarified it.

The best thing is proper protection against crime. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) returning to his place, because he discussed the Conservative party's proposals to employ 40,000 additional police officers through its fantasy island programme on asylum seekers. The Labour party has introduced record numbers of police officers, which has been part of our substantial success in reducing crime—burglary is down 39 per cent. since the Leader of the Opposition was Home Secretary.

Mr. Hayes: This is about policing, and no party supports the police more than the Conservative party. I fully endorse the Minister's remarks about the importance of providing the police with adequate resources—which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we intend to do—and giving them special powers. However, that policy cannot be successful unless it is backed up by a criminal justice system that allows the police to do their job, raises their morale and restores public faith in them and the law.

Fiona Mactaggart: Precisely. That is one of the reasons for our series of developments to increase public confidence in our criminal justice system, but the first port of call is to stop people becoming victims in the first place. I expect the House to expect me to make clear the Government's commitment and record of success.
 
30 Apr 2004 : Column 1178
 

Under the law at present, a person is entitled to use reasonable force in self-defence or to protect another person or property. What constitutes reasonable force depends on the circumstances of each case, and it is a matter for the courts to decide. Clearly, the force that it is reasonable to use in any given situation depends on the circumstances, the nature of the threat and what it takes to counter that threat; the reaction must be proportionate.

The hon. Member for North Thanet suggested a pedantic definition of reasonable force, which is not defined in law and is rightly a question for a jury of 12 citizens making up their minds on the basis of the facts of a particular case. The judge will direct the jury, and the circumstances include the situation as the defendant honestly believed it to be.

Lord Justice Woolf said this about the Martin case:

"it was for the jury, as the representative of the public, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable and the amount of force which it would be unreasonable to use in the circumstances in which they found that Mr Martin believed himself to be in."

When a defence of self-defence is raised, the prosecution has the burden of satisfying the jury. The jury is entitled to find a defendant guilty only if it is sure that the force used was unreasonable. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), in querying whether prosecution should take place, implied that the reasonableness test was in the hands of the Crown Prosecution Service, but it is not—it is in the hands of the jury.

The law recognises that in the heat of the moment and in a panic, it may be hard for a householder to assess exactly what level of force is necessary and proportionate. The courts have held that if a person does only what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary to prevent a crime, that would be potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken. However, the law does not permit an act of retaliation. The punishment of criminals is rightly a matter for the courts: it is not for victims, vigilantes or anyone else to take the law into their own hands. They should not seek to punish an offender for a crime or trespass committed against them, their friends or their family. Prevention and defence is one thing; retaliation is quite another. We think that the law as it stands represents a fair balance between the need for householders to defend themselves and their property and the need for society at large to have confidence in the rule of law.

The proposals in the Bill have something of the wild west about them—attractive at first sight, but designed for an era of anarchy, "might is right", and everyone for himself. That is why it is important to stress the work that we have done to ensure that the law is enforced effectively by a more substantial police force.

Mr. Hayes: Retaliation implies time, thought, and that someone who has suffered an ill will seek by deliberate intent to inflict an ill on someone else. We are not talking about that, but about someone responding as any citizen would—with immediacy, to defend themselves. Defence and retaliation are two very different things, as the hon. Lady must know. Not
 
30 Apr 2004 : Column 1179
 
everyone is able to escape such situations—many people live on the front line. I appreciate that she has a noble lineage, but most people do not.

Fiona Mactaggart: Those are cheap points, frankly. In fact, I will sign up with those hon. Members who put themselves in the lineage of the retaliators. Only two and a half weeks ago, I was subject to an attempted indecent assault on Clapham common, and it was only because the attempted assailant was the fleeter of foot that he survived without a very substantial thump. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill with care, he will see that it would permit retaliation. That is neither necessary nor appropriate in a modern society.

Hon. Members asked whether Mr. Martin would have been protected by the Bill. He probably would, because he needed only to have shown that he believed, whether reasonably or not, that he was acting in self-defence or in the protection of his property, and that the intruder was a trespasser.

Following the Martin case, there has been a cloud of confusion about the current state of the law, and some issues remain properly to be remedied. One of those, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and is addressed in clause 3, is that of civil liability where a householder damages the property of an intruder or kills him. That provision is unnecessary, because we made amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to ensure that householders and other victims of crime are not subjected to unjustified claims for damages where they have acted reasonably and proportionately in self-defence against a perceived or actual threat. That means that any claim can proceed only in strictly defined circumstances with the express permission of the court, and would not succeed unless the court was satisfied that the householder's actions had been grossly disproportionate.

Those provisions were carefully considered and accepted by Parliament, and they came into force on 20 January. We believe that they represent a sensible and proportionate response to concerns in this area, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In addition, the Lord Chancellor has directed the Legal Services Commission to consult on tightening up the rules to ensure that offenders would not be entitled to legal aid to pursue their victims in such circumstances. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured that that aspect of the Bill is not required.

The proposed Bill would give a person virtual immunity from prosecution for any act done by him if he believed, "whether reasonably or not", that he was acting in self-defence or that he was acting to preserve property, to apprehend a wrongdoer or to prevent a crime, and believed—again, "whether reasonably or not"—that the other person was a trespasser. That is certainly a step too far. We must all be responsible for our actions, and be prepared to answer for those actions if necessary. That is justice. When there was a clearly disproportionate response to an incident, where someone was seriously injured or killed, no responsible person would want to find that the perpetrator did not have to answer for those actions before a jury.

It is for a jury to decide whether someone is acting reasonably or unreasonably and whether their actions are proportionate and justifiable or not. To allow
 
30 Apr 2004 : Column 1180
 
someone to use any means to defend themselves could include, for example, being able to use weapons to kill an intruder. That would clearly be a disproportionate and unreasonable response to an unarmed burglar. It would grant someone a licence to kill with impunity. We do not hang burglars in this day and age, and we certainly would not be happy to suggest that prospective burglars could or should be shot with impunity. They should be pursued with the full force of the law.

I know that in some cases people feel that the law is not protecting them, and that is what has led to this proposal. We need to make sure that the law is operating as it should, but putting householders beyond its reach would not help the law to protect them. Rather, it would create an acceptance of lawlessness and a spiral of violence and retaliation that would make the situation worse. It would create a situation in which people felt that they had to go armed in order to protect themselves. That cannot be what we want to achieve.

We would rather pursue an approach that depends on more robust policing and more effective support for the victims of crime. The sense that there is nothing that victims can do is in many ways disabling, and it is one of the things that has led to the introduction of the Bill. As the hon. Member for North Thanet suggested, we need to address the underlying perception—which we do not believe to be well founded—that the criminal justice system has shifted so that the criminal, rather than the real victim, is seen as the victim.

That is why we have taken so many substantial steps to support victims. A conference for victims was held for the first time this week, and we have introduced legislation that puts victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, including the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the new Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. They are all designed to protect victims more effectively.

We also need to remember too that not everyone who enters private property does so with criminal intent. This law could allow a householder to take action against small boys who are looking for a lost football, against an unsuspecting and unrecognised deliveryman, or against anyone rash enough to set foot on their property, even for a completely legitimate purpose. Members of the House would need to take care when they were next on the campaign trail. The hon. Member for Broxtowe suggested that all of us who spend time in our constituents' gardens could face violent action from a constituent. I do not believe that the constituents of Slough are of the type to which he referred, but we could face that risk if they thought that we were trespassing.

This Bill would give them complete impunity and thus represent a step backwards for democracy. It goes too far. The law already enables people to act reasonably in self-defence, or in defence of their property. However, such a provision—

---