---

Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill

My hon. Friend is right. Juries have common sense. Most of the few cases that did reach trial resulted in the acquittal of those involved, and I believe that those that did not reach trial would have resulted in convictions under the proposed law. Why change the law? There is no support to speak of from those involved professionally, who actually have to deal with the problem—although I know that the Conservatives like to ignore professional advice, as we saw in relation to terrorism. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) mentioned police on the beat, and we could cite more senior police. Perhaps however we should start with the example of an extremely eminent QC who is a Member of this House—the Leader of the Opposition, for a few more days. When he was Home Secretary, he said:"““Specifically on the law on self-defence, I am satisfied that the individual should always be able to defend himself, his family and his property, as long as he only uses force that is both reasonable and necessary. I am not currently persuaded that there is a need to change the law.””—[Official Report, 14 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 533W.]"