| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, is not the ultimate measurement of success or otherwise in the farming industry related to the value of farm properties and the price of land? Can my noble friend tell us whether the price of land is going up or coming down?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the price of land has risen significantly in most parts of the country, after a slight hiatus when there was uncertainty about the direction of the common agricultural policy. As no more land is being created, I suspect that its price will continue to rise and that land therefore represents a major asset to landowners and those who own long leases.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, given the Minister's reply to the previous question, could he please explain to the House how the increase in the value of land, to which he alluded, helps tenant farmers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in many circumstances it does not help tenant farmers. The Government are seeking to address aspects of the tenancy situation. A recent report from the TRIG group suggests some improvements in tenancy arrangements which, it is hoped, would encourage a move towards longer-term and more stable tenancies for whole-farm tenants. Ultimately, however, there is a market for tenancies as there is for land. Land is scarce; the price of land is going up; and therefore the balance between the landowner and the tenant in most cases shifts in favour
9 Feb 2005 : Column 794
of the landowner. In those circumstances, it is the duty of the Government to protect the position of the tenant.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the switch to the single farm payment system for supporting agriculture has led to the appearance of an increasing number of articles predicting that land at present being cropped will be taken out of agricultural production entirely. What contribution does the Minister think that development will make to sustainable agriculture?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the choice that will be available to farmers over how to use their land as a result of the single farm payment will mean that farmers can use their land to its maximum profitability, subject to various environmental considerations. Some farmers will not use all their available land for traditional agricultural processes, some will diversify, and some will look to alternative uses. I do not expect to see a significant reduction in the amount of land under agricultural cultivation as a result of the single farm payment. Indeed, in some areas, we may see more land being used. However, other developments are taking place, and some agricultural land may be used to provide, for example, affordable housing—thus addressing what everyone agrees is a major problem in rural areas.
Householders: Use of Reasonable Force
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ackner asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the guidelines issued by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers on the use of lethal force against intruders adequately address public concern.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, yes. On 12 January 2005, the Home Secretary announced that, in the Government's view, the current law is sound but that there was a need to provide clarification to householders regarding their rights. On 1 February, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers issued guidance. This guidance sets out in plain language what householders' rights are and the level of force that they can use if faced with an intruder in their home. As I and the Home Secretary made clear, the Government welcome the guidance.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have two questions to put to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. First, does he agree that the public want to know not only the degree of force which legitimately can be used against an intruder, but also what are the consequences of exceeding the use of reasonable force? Secondly, as the law stands the position is stark. If death results, the offence is murder and a sentence of imprisonment follows automatically. When will the Government implement the availability of the intermediate offence of manslaughter, as recommended by the Appellate
9 Feb 2005 : Column 795
Committee of this House in the case of the solder Clegg in Ireland in 1996, approving the recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which was followed by the Law Commission and the Select Committee of this House on murder and life imprisonment, of which I was privileged to be a member?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, in answer to the noble and learned Lord's first question, yes, but I do not think there is any doubt that the public do know what the consequences are. That is what the debate has been about. As to his second question, I have sympathy with what he says. He will know that recently in the context of manslaughter by reason of provocation, the Law Commission was asked to look at the circumstances in which manslaughter may be the appropriate charge and drew attention to the issue to which the noble and learned Lord referred of what the correct charge should be where there is a case of self-defence but the violence is excessive. That needs to be looked at further.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can the Attorney-General confirm that in the past 15 years there have been only 11 prosecutions of householders who used force against burglars, and that of that number only five were convicted? Has he seen the comments of the Director of Public Prosecutions that there have been cases where householders have shot dead or fatally stabbed burglars, or hit them over the head with a baseball bat or metal bar, and have not been prosecuted?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, in the second part of his question, my noble friend is right. The Director of Public Prosecutions has indicated that there have been cases where householders have killed the intruder and there has not been a prosecution. As to the first part of his question, again my noble friend is right. The Crown Prosecution Service carried out an informal—and therefore not necessarily exhaustive—survey and found that over the past 15 years there were only 11 cases where people were prosecuted for attacking intruders in houses, commercial premises or private land. In fact, only seven of those appear to have resulted from domestic household burglaries.
Lord Henley: My Lords, while accepting that there are distinctions between the criminal law and the civil law, does not the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General accept that there is a certain illogicality in that the test that is used in civil law to judge whether a burglar can sue a householder rests upon whether the householder has used grossly disproportionate force against the burglar, whereas the test in criminal law of whether a householder has acted properly rests upon reasonable force? Can the noble and learned Lord explain why there should be two distinct tests and whether he accepts that that is illogical?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not accept that it is illogical. The expression "reasonable in the circumstances" is used throughout the criminal law as the test for deciding culpability where violence is used
9 Feb 2005 : Column 796
against another person. It is entirely appropriate that it should remain so. But it is not right, the Government believe—and it has been accepted—that intruders should be able to claim damages under the civil law for injuries which they have brought upon themselves by their own illegal behaviour, except in the most exceptional circumstances.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General aware that in Oklahoma a householder is able to kill or maim an intruder whether or not there is a threat? It is called the "make my day" law. Do we want that in this country?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the answer is "no" to both parts of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, what status does advice given by ACPO have in a court of law?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. Of course the law is determined by the courts, by the judges, and applied by the juries. But the guidance which has been produced setting out in plain language householders' rights and the level of force that they can use is, in the Government's view, extremely helpful in reassuring the public. It also indicates the way in which the police and the prosecution service will act. That is also important in giving reassurance that people can protect themselves, their families and their homes against intruders by using reasonable force. The Government very strongly support that fact.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, returning to the question asked by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, if the only available offence in cases where death has resulted from the use of excessive force is murder, will that not discourage juries from convicting in cases where there ought to have been a conviction?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |