EMPTY HOUSING (PREVENTION OF SQUATTING) (Hansard, 6 August 1975)

§ Mr. John Cordle (Bournemouth, East)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it illegal for people to occupy empty premises without the permission of the owner. This Bill would deal effectively and at once with the national scourge of squatting, because squatting has now become a rampant social evil.

The nature and extent of the problem posed by highly organised bands of squatters causes the overwhelming majority of decent, hardworking, law-abiding citizens to feel distinctly uneasy. A significant number of active leaders are political extremists determined to cause the maximum possible nuisance and annoyance both to private persons and to public authorities.

I shall cite one single example—the organised squat in and around Elgin Avenue in the Maida Vale area of London About 600 squatters have been organised by the International Marxist leader Mr. Piers Corbyn, who was quoted recently in our national daily Press as saying that squatting was all useful preparation for the revolution. It is apparently a fact, incredible though it may seem, that there is in circulation a handbook called "The Squatters Handbook", which lists properties which are considered to be ripe for squatting and actively encourages people to join this particular type of lawlessness.

Recently in Ipswich squatters have been politically motivated, and at weekends in the town centre they hand out Communist literature. They purchase rent books from W. H. Smith, the booksellers, fill these in and claim that they are paying tenants, which adds further confusion and disruption. There is no doubt that squatting has become fashionable and is a menace to local authorities.

§ Mr. Cordle

The housing programmes are held up because squatters move into property that is due to be demolished and/or renovated. Almost completely new and/or refurbished properties are 529 suddenly occupied just before they are finally completed and ready for families on the housing lists who have been waiting to move in.

Squatting is a menace to private individuals whose homes are invaded while they are away for a few weeks' holiday. Miss Harper of Kensington, whose case sparked off a great deal of correspondence in The Times recently, proved the point. There are others whose homes have been broken into while they are empty awaiting the new owner after the owner has moved house.

Therefore, in order to deal with this menace of squatting and the conspiracy to trespass, it is quite clear that the law must be amended. The present legal position is nothing short of absurd. The sophisticated mid-twentieth century revolutionary confronts the full majesty of the law of medieval England and exploits his advantage to the full. As the law stands today, in order to initiate a squat in a locked and secured building, someone commits an offence by making a forcible entry. Thereafter all the remaining persons who take up residence in the building commit no offence by merely walking through the open door. It is invariably impossible to obtain evidence about the commission of the original offence.

What must be done, and done speedily, is to sweep away the old law—the statutes on forcible entry covering the years 1381 to 1623—and to enact a new code designed to deal with the existing and anarchistic menace. The nature and magnitude of the problem clearly indicate that the time has passed when squatting can be considered a civil matter alone. The organised squatters wish to threaten the Queen's peace. Their attitude to the rule of law is totally hypocritical. They are content to break the law to gain initial entry and thereafter they seek to claim the protection of that law to continue in possession. They wish to challenge the rights of the individual citizen to be and feel secure in the enjoyment of his property.

All these factors make it imperative that this menace to society should be recognised as a criminal threat and dealt with by the criminal courts and police. 530 Last week, Sir Eric Sachs, formerly Mr. Justice Sachs, wrote in a letter to The Times that: A primary duty of the police is to protect citizens and their property against criminals. The common law, with innate good sense, provides on this occasion—as on many others—protection of the citizen 'when he has to defend himself against many combined to do him injury'. I shall take the example of the man who returns from holiday to find that his house had been taken over by a band of squatters. Surely he should be entitled to summon the assistance of the police to come and forthwith restore him to his home. If that were the law, the law would accord with common sense and justice. It is vital, if respect for the law is to be fostered and encouraged by this House, that whenever a law is seen not to accord with either common sense or justice it should be speedily brought into line with those vital principles.

The present law does nothing to deter squatting. The new law should deter it by enacting that each and every person who remains on property, having been ordered to leave by the owner, commits an offence which is punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine. The new law should also provide a further deterrent of enabling the owner to claim compensation calculated by the value of the occupation to the offending squatters—that is, a payment of money equivalent to rent. If those squatters or persons contemplating squatting realised that their activity would be no cheaper than behaving lawfully and would involve them in trouble before the criminal courts, there would be some effective deterrent.

I stress that urgent action is required now. The Government have recognised that there is a problem but they refuse to take speedy action. In this the Government are out of sympathy with the wishes of the vast majority of the people who are deeply conscious of the absurdities and inadequacies of the existing law. A change is needed now.