We the people...
The Lords are set to debate Clause 136 of the LASPO Bill on squatting next Tuesday the 20 March. Amendments to the Clause are put forward by interested peers and can be voted on that day.
Here are the amendments being tabled in full, with explanations why we support them.
That will be a very important day: it could mean the criminalisation of squatting in residential buildings, it could mean a stay of execution for squatting – and some of the most vulnerable people in society. We’re doing everything we can to make sure it’s the latter, and we think these amendments will help.
House of Lords Briefing Paper – Opposition to squatting criminalisation
House of Lords Briefing Paper – Please support Baroness Miller’s
Amendments on Tuesday evening to Clause 136 of LASPO bill
March 2012
Introduction
SQUASH (Squatters’ Action for Secure Homes) is concerned about the impact on homeless and
vulnerable people of criminalising squatting in residential properties, as proposed by Clause 136 of
the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (LASPO).
We are joined by other organisations in thinking that Clause 136 is unjust, unnecessary, and unaffordable, and call on the Lords to oppose its inclusion in the Bill. Clause 136 is due to be debated on the final day of LASPO
report stage which is Tuesday 20th March, the debate is expected to take place very late in the day
however we urge you to attend as when a whole section of society is faced with becoming criminals
at the very least they deserve a vote.
Following a Ministry of Justice consultation in which 96% of respondents opposed criminalisation,
the clause was added to the LASPO bill at the third reading in the House of Commons. It has not
received proper scrutiny. Homeless Charity Shelter said: “we urge the government not to rush
through new criminal laws in a knee-jerk reaction to high profile media stories”. Amendments you
may want to support are:
Amendment 1 – Clause Stand Part
Clause 136 is unnecessary and this is a central reason for opposing its inclusion in the Bill. Despite
media scaremongering, people displaced from their homes by squatters are already fully protected
by existing laws. The 1977 Criminal Law Act protects displaced residential occupiers (DROs) and
protected intending occupiers (PIOs). Numerous groups, including the Law Society, the Metropolitan
Police, and the Criminal Bar Association, have stressed that further criminalisation is unnecessary.
· “The current law is comprehensive and effective … the proposals in this consultation are based
on misunderstandings by the media of the scale of the problem and a misunderstanding of the
current law.” – Law Society
· “Repeated inaccurate reporting of this issue has created fear for homeowners, confusion for the
police and ill-informed debate among both the public and politicians on reforming the law.” –
Letter from 160 legal experts and lawyers published in The Guardian.
· SQUASH believe that Clause 136 is likely to be abused by landlords seeking to evict those with
insecure tenancies quickly and cheaply. Shelter are concerned about the “undermining of
legitimate tenant protection and other unintended consequences” of Clause 136 which could be
“a gift to rogue landlords”.
Amendment 2 – Properties left empty for twelve months or more to be exempt
from the new law
· Whilst homelessness is rising rapidly, there are almost 1 million buildings lying empty in the UK
(Empty Homes Agency).
· Research from homelessness charity Crisis shows that 40% of homeless people use squatting to
avoid street sleeping.
· “We are concerned that the proposed new offence will largely affect empty or abandoned
homes and will expose vulnerable homeless people to the criminal law. If passed, Clause 136
could leave individuals with no choice but to sleep on the streets.” – Liberty.
Amendment 3 – Clause 136 is not commenced until the Secretary of State reports to
Parliament with an assessment of its full costs to the public purse
Using government data and a methodology endorsed by a range of academics and legal
practitioners, SQUASH have calculated that Clause 136 could cost £790 million over the next 5 years
to the taxpayer. This is far in excess of the £350 million a year savings that the rest of the LASPO Bill is
supposed to make. The government have not factored the costs of this clause into their Impact
Assessment for the Bill:
· The government’s Impact Assessment, which estimates the costs at £25 million over 5 years, is
sorely inadequate. No attempt has been made to account for the costs of rehousing and
rehabilitating those who currently squat and estimates of the costs to the Criminal Justice
System are far too low.
· ALTER (Action for Land Taxation and Economic Reform), of which Nick Clegg is Vice President,
said: “This change is contrary to the interests of UK taxpayers. It would provide a valuable state
funded benefit to wealthy tax avoiders.”
Our research, backed by experts, shows conclusively that the government has seriously
underestimated the financial implications of Clause 136, raising serious questions about the
reliability of official cost estimates for the rest of the Legal Aid Bill.
Amendment 4 – Retrospective criminalisation
Section 7 of Clause 136 will criminalise those
whose trespass occurred before the legislation
was enacted. This sits uneasily with Article 7 of
the European Convention on Human Rights,
which prohibits retrospective criminalisation.
Section 7 of the clause should be deleted to
ensure the new law does not contradict the
ECHT.
Amendment 5 – Defining residential
There is imprecision with regards to the
definition of “residential”. To accord with the
intention of legislators – the protection of
homeowners – this definition should be
clarified and restricted to use classes C3
(dwellings, houses, flats, apartments) or C4
(houses of multiple occupation).
For a printed copy, more information or to get in contact with us please e-mail
parliament@squashcampaign.org or call on 07895 107 544