Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

In accepting Government new clause 6, I want to explain why we do not believe that it goes far enough and why new clauses 8 and 9 remain the approach that the House should adopt. The private Members' Bills introduced over the past few years by my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), all of whom are present today, sought, as we do, to give greater clarity to the law not by introducing the concept of people acting reasonably but by permitting them, when protecting themselves or their property against a trespasser, to use a degree of force provided that that force was not grossly disproportionate and as long as it should not have been apparent to the person that such force was grossly disproportionate. The Secretary of State spoke about cases in which victims of crime had their premises, homes or commercial premises entered, which led to their being in fear and using force—sometimes lethal force. The consequence of that use of force was not only an initial police arrest but a subsequent investigation and often a prosecution. The fact that the jury usually acquits the defendant does not remove the great stress that any such actions cause. It is common ground between the Opposition and the Secretary of State, who has recognised that the law inadequately protects the interests of the householder or shopkeeper, that some restatement is needed.