When the Prime Minister announced on June 22 that the Government is to press ahead with its plans to reclassify squatting from a civil offence to a criminal one, it rekindled a dispute that cuts to the core of British society. The only thing those on opposing sides of the argument can agree about is the emotiveness of the subject.
At present, squatting – or the unauthorised occupation of empty or abandoned properties – remains legal, providing there is no evidence of forced entry into the building. However, if the Government gets its way, following a consultation due to take place later this summer, legislation will be passed to change this – most probably with the creation of a new criminal offence in England and Wales: “intentional trespass”.
In addition, as outlined in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, for the first time squatters would also be denied access to state funding to fight prosecution. As an instrumental campaigner for the changes and someone thanked personally in the House Commons for his work on the issue by Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, Mike Weatherley the Conservative MP for the East Sussex constituency of Hove and Portslade, is unequivocal in his support for the proposals.
“The days will soon be gone when a property owner returns to find their house or flat illegally occupied”, he states. “Under the law as it stands, there are no recriminations for squatters.”
But Reuben Taylor of campaign group SQUASH (Squatters’ Action for Secure Homes) disagrees. “People are being encouraged to believe that the bill is being brought to protect people like them, which is nonsense”.
She insists that, contrary to media reporting, ordinary homeowners and tenants are already adequately protected against squatters by law. As it stands, legislation protecting squatters, commonly termed squatters’ rights, exists in the form of Section Six of the 1977 Criminal Justice Act. This prevents forcible entry into a property that people are occupying. It is Section Six notices which squatters often display outside the properties in which they are living.
However, “displaced residential occupiers” – residents prevented from entering their home due to squatters and “protected intended occupiers” (someone intending to move into a vacant property) – are exempt. For Mike Weatherley, this situation is far from adequate. Despite conceding that it is easier for certain groups, s uch as people returning from holiday, to remove squatters, he argues that the law is still too lax.
“It only becomes a criminal offence if an order is served to squatters and they refuse to leave. That means there is no incentive for squatters to stop what they are doing. When they get locked up for their actions, they will stop doing it”. The conflicting opinions of Weatherall and SQUASH on the penal treatment of squatters are born out of diametrically opposing views on why people squat. For Weatherall, it’s a question of “lifestyle choice” which turns them to squatting. For SQUASH, it’s all about people’s circumstances. Weatherall contends that squatters and the homeless are two distinct groups. SQUASH’s view is that they are one and the same.
SQUASH is particularly concerned that the Government’s proposals will lead to an increase in rough sleeping. Reuben Taylor says: “Surveys have shown 40 per cent of squatters also sleep rough when nowhere is available”. For its part, the Government has acknowledged the concerns that SQUASH shares with other charities and pressure groups, including Crisis and the Empty Homes Agency. According to a spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice:
“The Government is aware of arguments that tougher laws to tackle squatting could have an effect on vulnerable people. The consultation paper will invite the views of charities and other organisations which have regular contact with the homeless.” At least one of these groups is likely to draw attention to the insensitive nature and incongruous timing of the Government’s announcement.
When deficit reduction is informing all aspects of Government policy, including Ken Clarke’s now infamous plans to reduce the time certain prisoners spend in jail, the creation of a new crime which could make 20,000 squatters in England and Wales eligible for custodial sentences may appear inadvisable. To the mix can be added a housing market threatened with a serious lack of supply (in March, the Institute for Public Policy Research estimated that, by 2025 in England alone, there will be a shortfall of 750,000 homes), the caps imposed on housing benefit from October and Reuben Taylor’s concerns that a change in the law will “criminalise the homeless in a middle of a housing crisis.”
What of the separate decision to remove squatters’ entitlement to legal aid? In the pro-camp, despite making it clear that he hasn’t been pushing for these changes himself, Mike Weatherley welcomes the move. He argues that legal aid for squatters is tantamount to “the state supporting their activity”.
For those opposed, the announcement has left them somewhat bewildered. Yiannis, a squatter in north London and volunteer at the Advisory Service for Squatters says: “Squatters are almost never entitled to legal aid”. Beneficiaries of legal aid have to demonstrate they have reasonable chance of winning their case, which squatters invariably do not. Reuben Taylor goes further. “Under the guise of withdrawing legal aid from squatters, in reality it will be people who are the victims of unscrupulous landlords that are penalised.”
Squatters, she contends, “are being used as a convenient smokescreen” to push through unpopular legislation, the implications of which will be felt far beyond those involved in squatting. While this notion of an ulterior motive will be too conspiratorial for many, there is a growing consensus that squatters are increasingly negatively depicted in sections of the media. One of the most common accusations is that squatters damage the properties they inhabit, contributing to widespread social decline in areas where squatters live.
Yiannis disputes this. “The real effect of squatting is to regenerate areas and make people feel safe.” He points to the revitalisation of Broadway Market in east London as an example of the social good brought by squatters. “He concedes: “ There are a small minority of cases where property is damaged and drugs are involved. There is no evidence to say this is more than in owned or rented properties.”In public, groups representing squatters remain bullish, insisting a change in the law is not a foregone conclusion.
History is on their side. Twice previously, in 1977 and 1994, Conservative governments tried and failed to make squatting illegal. However, with a significant number of high-profile political U-turns already, there is a growing feeling that the coalition’s resolve will remain intact on this issue. But it is hard to see how any legislation can offer a satisfactory solution when there are fundamental differences about what the problem actually is. As far as the Government is concerned, squatting is the problem. Squatters say the problem is homelessness.Yiannis says: “The vast majority of squatters squat solely because they are homeless”.
Depending on your perspective, criminalising squatting will either cure the disease or exacerbate a symptom.
