HL Deb 14 October 2004 vol 665 cc385-7

11.8 a.m.

Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will introduce legislation to make it a criminal offence to trespass into or on buildings which are the property of Her Majesty the Queen.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have been considering whether it is necessary to create a specific offence of trespass for certain royal and government sites. We hope to be able to come to a conclusion shortly.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer as far as it goes. Is she aware that although, each year, thousands of people enter Buckingham Palace and Holyrood, unlawful intruders occasionally penetrate them, but commit only non-criminal trespass in doing so? Indeed, a few years ago, one of them even climbed up to Her Majesty's bedroom and committed merely a non-criminal offence of trespass. As an international terrorist might commit trespass in either royal palace, should it not be made a serious criminal offence?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point, which is why Her Majesty's Government have given the matter anxious attention. He will know that such activities can be addressed under a number of Acts, but that no specific offence applies. That is the issue to which we are now giving the most careful consideration. We think there may be a strong argument for introducing a specific offence of criminal trespass in relation only to Her Majesty's premises and perhaps to certain other secure sites.

Lord McNally

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that a slippery slope is implicit in this question? When I first visited Moscow there was a lane down the middle of the highways enabling the ZISs to go unmolested through the capital. There are dangers in our head of state and our political elite becoming ever more isolated by security measures. Those dangers should be put in the balance when considering these matters.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that we have to be proportionate. That is why we have to look with very great care at the precise nature of the lacuna—the gap that we have to fill—and ensure that we do not do that which is unnecessary or too heavy handed. But the issue does need to be addressed.

Lord Ackner

My Lords, how long has this anxious thought process been going on, and when does the Minister think it might come to a conclusion?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for always having the most helpful question. I can tell your Lordships that this matter has been under consideration since the latter part of 2003; your Lordships will remember the issue in relation to Windsor. We hope that we will soon be able to say precisely how this matter should be dealt with—and your Lordships know what "soon" can mean.

Lord Renton

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that only a very short Bill will be needed? I suggest that it is likely to get support from all over both Houses.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's indication of his support. My period at the Dispatch Box tells me that I have to take any further support with a little degree of caution. I can certainly tell your Lordships that I reasonably believe that this is an issue that we will be able to address relatively speedily.

Lord Rotherwick

My Lords, the Minister says that the Government have been addressing the issue with "anxious attention". Is not a year a rather long time to spend on "anxious attention"?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, no. It is a very complex issue. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, says, it is an issue of proportionality. Noble Lords will know that trespass currently is not a criminal offence. If a little boy kicks his ball into someone's garden or an old lady chases her dog on to someone's property in order to retrieve it, it should not be a criminal offence. We have to identify the other laws that currently cover the situation and fashion a sufficiently narrow provision to catch the mischief that we have all now seen identified.

This mischief is continuing and there have been a number of breaches. That is why we have to deal with it. I hope the House will feel that that is appropriate. We have to be protective in relation to security but conscious in relation to civil liberties and the practicalities of doing what makes sense.