---

Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill

My hon. Friend is right. I do not practise as a lawyer any more, but the only people to gain from the Bill belong to the legal profession. I expect lawyers to make a great deal of money from the obtuse arguments whose surface we have only scratched today. I have dealt with the position when property is owned illegally, but what is the position when property cannot be owned legally in the first place? For example, what if there is cache of drugs in a crack house? A drugs gang may be about to sell drugs to an addict who has entered the property legally at the invitation of his dealer for a fix. The junkie finds that he does not have enough money, and tries to grab the drugs. The drugs gang could use disproportionate force against the junkie to prevent him from seizing the illegal drugs that should not be in its possession in the first place. The junkie could argue that he was trying to prevent crime by seizing drugs from the dealers. Theoretically, both parties could deploy the argument that they were entitled to use disproportionate force. Similarly, a drugs gang may wish to use disproportionate force against another gang whose members are trying to collect payment or steal the drugs. That is not an infrequent occurrence, as we know from the leaflet produced by the CPS and ACPO, which says that burglaries are often used to conceal the fact that nefarious activities such as drug dealing are under way. The law is bad enough without introducing legalised gang warfare between tooled-up drugs gangs in a shoot-out. Each gang could use their Uzis to mow the other down—the Opposition might think there is nothing wrong with that—with disproportionate force. That is perfectly legal for both gangs under the Bill, because one is entitled to shoot someone if one faces the threat of force. One drugs gang is trying to prevent crime, and the other is trying to commit it. However, both are trying to defend their property, and the net result is legalised gang warfare. Surely, that is not what we are attempting to achieve in the Bill.