[If you want to contact a Lord about the antisquatting amendment to the Legal Aid Bill, go here]
Dear Lord Bassam,
I am writing to you as someone involved with both the Squatters Network of Brighton (SNOB) and Squatters’ Action for Secure Homes (SQUASH). Together we are campaigning against the government’s plans to criminalise squatting.
As you know, the Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders (LAPSO) Bill, which has reached the Committee Stage in the House of Lords, includes a late amendment (clause 130) which would make squatting in ‘residential’ buildings a criminal offence.
I believe that this law is unnecessary as existing criminal law is
fully adequate – it already protects residents and soon-to-be residents.
Furthermore, I am extremely concerned that it will exacerbate and
criminalise homelessness in a worsening housing crisis and will put
greater strain on the public purse in a time of severe cutbacks. The SQUASH briefing (here) covers this in more detail.
You are a former squatter yourself and were no doubt involved in CACTL, the Campaign Against the Criminal Trespass Law, back in the 1970s. I hope it is clear to you that just as it was a terrible idea to criminalise squatting then, it still is today.
When we asked you on Twitter how you felt about the bill, you said you would be making your feelings known. I hope you have! You may not be able to speak, being Chief Whip, but of course you can still voice your opinion. In response to the government’s consultation entitled ‘Options For Dealing with Squatting’, the Metropolitan Police, the Law Society and the Magistrates Association were amongst the 96% of respondents who do not want to see any action taken on squatting, along with homelessness charities and concerned members of the public.
Liberty, which also opposes bill, said:
“We are concerned that the proposed new offence will largely affect
empty or abandoned homes and will expose vulnerable homeless people to the criminal law. If passed, clause 130 could leave individuals with no choice but to sleep on the streets”.
I ask that you consider opposing Clause 130 for all the reasons
mentioned above. At second best, I would encourage you to support one of the alternative amendments, such as that proposed by homeless charity Crisis which would exclude properties left empty for more than 6 months from the scope of the law.