8/3/2019 Lords Briefing LASPO Bill 2012 - SQUASH

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lords-briefing-laspo-bill-2012-squash 1/2

1

House o Lords Brieng PaperOpposition to squatting criminalisation:

Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment o Oenders Bill (Clause 130)

February 2012

IntroductIon

SQuaSH (Sqs’ ai f S Hms) isconcerned about the impact on homeless and vulnerablepeople o criminalising squatting in residentialproperties, as proposed by Clause 130 o the LASPOBill.

 We are joined by other organisations in thinking thatClause 130 is unjust, unnecessary, and unafordable, and

call on the Lords to oppose its inclusion in the Bill.

Following a Ministry o Justice consultation in which96% o respondents opposed criminalisation, the clause was added to the LASPO bill at the third reading inthe House o Commons. It has not received properscrutiny. Homeless Charity Shl said: “we urge thegovernment not to rush through new criminal laws in aknee-jerk reaction to high prole media stories”.

 We oppose Clause 130 on the ollowing grounds:

1. unneceSSary  

People displaced rom their homes by squatters arealready ully protected by the existing law on squatting.Te 1977 Criminal Law Act protects displacedresidential occupiers (DROs) and protected intendingoccupiers (PIOs). Numerous groups, including theLw Si , the Mpli Pli, and thecimil b assii, have stressed that urthercriminalisation is unnecessary.

“Te current law is comprehensive and efective•

… the proposals in this consultation are based onmisunderstandings by the media o the scale o theproblem and a misunderstanding o the currentlaw” Lw Si  

“Repeated inaccurate reporting o this issue has•

created ear or homeowners, conusion or thepolice and ill-inormed debate among both thepublic and politicians on reorming the law”letter toTe Guardian rom 160 legal experts and lawyers.

Te coalition government have committed to“preventing the prolieration o unnecessary criminalofences.” SQuaSH believe that the criminalisation o squatting, provoked by media scare stories, contradicts

this commitment.

8/3/2019 Lords Briefing LASPO Bill 2012 - SQUASH

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lords-briefing-laspo-bill-2012-squash 2/2

2

2. unjuSt and unenForceabLe

Te criminalisation o squatting will exacerbate the twincrises o homelessness and empty properties.

Research rom homelessness charity • cisis showsthat 40% o homeless people use squatting to avoidstreet sleeping. Whilst homelessness is rising rapidly, there arealmost 1 million buildings lying empty.

“We are concerned that the proposed new ofence•

 will largely afect empty or abandoned homesand will expose vulnerable homeless people to thecriminal law. I passed, Clause 130 could leave

individuals with no choice but to sleep on thestreets” – Li .

Establishing whether or not someone is breaking•

the law will be extremely complex, given theintricacies o tenancy contracts and o property classications which designate a property as‘residential’ or not. It is unjust to remove suchdisputes rom the purview o the courts, increasingthe likelihood o illegal evictions, and leaving thepolice open to complaints.

SQuaSH• believe that Clause 130 is likely tobe abused by landlords seeking to evict those with insecure tenancies quickly and cheaply.Shl are concerned about the “undermining o legitimate tenant protection and other unintendedconsequences” o Clause 130 which could be “a gitto rogue landlords”.

3. unaFFordabLe

SQuaSH have calculated that over the next ve yearsthe costs o criminalising squatting could reach £1billion1. Tis includes increased housing benet andhomelessness provision, policing costs, and costs to thecriminal justice and probation system o prosecutingsquatters. SQuaSH believe these costs are unafordableto the public purse.

Te government’s Impact Assessment does not•

adequately assess the cost o criminalising squatting.

It states that “there is no consensus on the trueextent o squatting”. However, it does recognisethat: “local authorities and homelessness (andother related) charities may ace increased pressureon their services i more squatters are arrested/convicted and/or deterred rom squatting.”

“Criminalisation o squatting and subsequent•

enorcement would have an impact on policing,in terms o community relations, local policingobjectives and cost.” - Mpli Pli,response to Ministry o Justice consultation onsquatting.

 aLter (ai f L txi emi•

rfm), o which Nick Clegg is Vice President,said: “Tis change is contrary to the interests o UK taxpayers. It would provide a valuable state undedbenet to wealthy tax avoiders.”

oPPoSItIon to cLauSe 130

Tree amendments have been tabled. Te rst proposesthat Clause 130 be removed rom the bill entirely. Tesecond proposes to insert the caveat that: “Te ofence

is not committed where the building has been empty or 6 months or more and where there are no signicantsteps being taken to reurbish, let or sell the building atthe time o the trespass.”, Te third proposes that: “Teclause is not commenced until the Secretary o Statereports to Parliament with an assessment o its ull coststo the public purse”. In addition, other amendments arein the process o being tabled.

For more detail, please view or download our 10-page briefng online at:

www.squashcampaign.org/laspo-lords-briefng/ 

For a printed copy please e-mail  parliament@squashcampaign.org 

SQUASH CampaignFebruary 2012

1For the ull research and methodology see:http://www.squashcampaign.org/cost-o-criminalisation