§ Mr. MaclennanI beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 52, line 13, after 'hours', insert
`in non-residential premises, or seven working days in residential premises,'.
§ Madam SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 67, in page 52, line 18, at end insert—
'2(A) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (2) it shall be a defence for him to prove that at the time the interim possession order was served on him he had reasonable grounds for believing that he was entitled to remain in occupation of the premises.'.
§ Mr. MaclennanAmendment No. 33 is not designed in any way to undermine the purpose of the Government's intentions in dealing with squatters. As the law stands, it allows an unacceptable process of delay to take place which can prevent the true owners of a residence from recovering the occupancy of their premises. The Government were entirely right to introduce this clause, but the proposal that it should be possible to evict squatters within 24 hours of the serving of a writ is too summary and too likely to wreak injustice. A period of seven days would be more reasonable.
May I point out, as I think that I did at an earlier stage, that the circumstances in which it is discovered that people are squatting are not in any sense uniform. I know of one occasion when a tenant of a property was served with a notice to quit by a bank, which was the true owner of the property. The tenant held a wholly invalid lease from a third party who had been dispossessed by the bank and he had no knowledge of the fact that he was a squatter. In such circumstances, although he is technically and clearly a squatter, it would be reasonable to allow a certain amount a time to elapse to put one's house in order. I hope that the Minister will not view the amendment as undermining the purposes of the clause, but rather as fortifying its equity.
§ Mr. TrimbleI shall follow briefly what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said and especially develop the example that he used. It is quite appropriate to remember that in such circumstances we may be dealing not only with the property owner and a squatter, but with third parties who have behaved dishonestly. There may be circumstances in which persons are squatting in a property, yet none the less believe that they are entitled to be there because of the fraud of some other person. Amendment No. 67 is designed to deal with that situation. It is not intended in any way to disrupt the operation of the legislation and I agree that there should be more effective remedies to enable the property owner to regain possession.
May I simply ask the Minister this: if a person has reasonable grounds for believing that he is entitled to remain in possession of a property, how can it be just to convict him of an offence and make him a criminal, if he has reasonable grounds? The amendment would operate only when someone has reasonable grounds for believing that he is entitled to remain in possession of the property. The term "reasonable" obviously imports subjective criteria, which may be examined by the courts if the circumstances arise. As a result of the fraud of some other 314 party, how can it be right to make the person occupying a property, who believes that he is entitled to be there, a criminal?
§ Mr. MacleanI understand the concern of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that the new interim possession procedure should not operate unjustly. I share his concern, which is why clause 65 makes it an offence to seek an interim possession order under false pretences. However, I am afraid that I cannot accept the two amendments.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) would extend the period of grace allowed to squatters in residential premises after they have been served with an interim possession order from 24 hours to seven days. That is too long. The minimum delay between serving a summons on squatters and a court hearing under the existing procedure is only five days. The whole point of the new procedure is that it should be quicker than the existing one, which has been found to be unacceptably slow and is open to tactical delays by squatters.
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is proposing a delay of 24 hours between ordering squatters to leave and seeking an interim possession order, so, effectively, squatters will have 48 hours to seek legitimate accommodation. I do not think that we would be justified in prolonging that period at the expense of the lawful owners and occupiers of property. Under the Lord Chancellor's proposals, the new procedure will be available for only 28 days after the presence of the squatters is discovered. The scenario outlined by the hon. Member for Upper Bann will therefore be covered.
I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but his defence is unacceptable and would seriously undermine the new procedure by opening up a substantial loophole for squatters. All squatters could routinely claim that they believed that they were lawful tenants and entitled to disregard the interim possession order. The police would then have to decide whether to act against them and would probably decide not to do so in most cases.
If a case came before the magistrates, they would similarly have to assess a claim not that the alleged squatters were in fact entitled to remain but that they had reasonable grounds for believing that they were. Squatters would produce false leases or allege that they had been given the keys and were licensees, as they do at present. All the advantages that the new procedure is intended to bring would be lost and aggrieved owners would probably find the new procedure even less effective than the existing civil remedy.
Under our proposals, all that the police will have to decide is whether a civil court's order has been obeyed —questions about the merits of the civil case are nothing to do with them. Similarly, if a case goes before the magistrates, the only question will be whether the interim possession order was complied with within 24 hours as required. One of the main reasons why the Government did not wish simply to criminalise squatting per se was to avoid entangling the police and magistrates in complicated questions about the civil law of trespass, with which they are not equipped to deal.
It is also undesirable in principle to create a statutory right to disobey a court order. If people believe that they are not squatters, they will have a right under the new 315 procedure to a full hearing of the case after they have obeyed the interim order. People who are served with a court order to leave premises within 24 hours cannot reasonably believe that they are entitled to disregard it. For those reasons, I must reject the amendments from the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland and for Upper Bann.
§ Mr. MaclennanI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.