Corporate Watch interviewed Hannah Schling, current member of SQUASH (and former member of Corporate Watch), about how the campaign is shaping up in the light of imminent changes to squatting law.
Why was SQUASH originally set up?
Squatters Action for Secure Homes (SQUASH) was originally set up in the early 1990s to resist the then Tory government’s attempt to criminalise squatting as part of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in 1994.
How did it succeed in resisting this attempt to criminalise squatting in the 1990s?
SQUASH was very successful in the 1990s. The government’s initial intentions had been to criminalise squatting outright, but in the end they introduced the Interim Possession Order (which gives property owners increased powers to gain speedier eviction, but doesn’t criminalise the act of squatting itself).
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act was an attempt to criminalise trespass in many different forms - from raves to the roads protests and hunt saboteurs - and so brought together a huge and diverse movement resisting a single piece of legislation. SQUASH was one part of this. Now we’re facing attacks, cuts and privatisation, on multiple fronts, with groups more dispersed in their resistance.
Like now, SQUASH did lots of research in the 1990s, producing in-depth briefings and managing to get sympathetic quotes, even from the Met. In the end, the House of Lords changed the wording and structure of the bill to significantly lessen its negative impact on squatting. I think that this was a direct result of SQUASH’s research and arguments and the effect they had on many influential people.
Why has SQUASH been re-started?
Because squatting and homelessness are, once again, under attack, both by politicians and by the corporate media. This time, however, they are aiming to make the very act of squatting in residential properties a criminal offence.
We re-started the group in March last year after a dramatic increase in negative and distorted stories about squatters in the media. Sections of the corporate media, in collusion with the Tories, have been conducting an active campaign of misinformation, serving to create confusion about existing legislation on squatting and attempting to construct ‘public demand’ for criminalisation.
Then, as if ‘responding’ to this public demand, the government announced its intentions to criminalise squatting and launched a consultation, ‘Options for Dealing with Squatting’, which closed on the 5th October. Twenty days later the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) reported the results of the consultation, in which 96% of respondents were opposed to any further criminalisation of squatting. Despite this, the next day the MoJ announced new Clause 26 to the Legal Aid and Sentencing of Offenders Bill, to criminalise all squatting in residential buildings. The Legal Aid Bill was also already at its third reading in the House of Commons, past the committee stage, and Clause 26 was discussed and passed by MPs four working days after its announcement by the MoJ. The government introduced criminalisation through the back door by adding a last minute clause that received little to no scrutiny in the commons. It is now at the House of Lords.
What tactics has the group used so far to try to resist the criminalisation of squatting?
SQUASH has been running an extensive campaign to challenge media misinformation, and provide positive influence to public opinion on squatting. For example, we have an extensive blog on our website[1]. We’ve started a ‘Made Possible by Squatting’ campaign to show how many now public spaces have been reclaimed via squatting and transformed into co-operatives, social centres, and spaces providing services, such as Crossroads Women’s Centre[2].
We have undertaken a lot of research, producing a report - ‘Criminalising the Vulnerable’ - and a briefing for MPs on Clause 26[3].
Alongside this we have brought together many different groups, squatters to housing action groups and students, building broad based opposition to criminalisation. This is also important for shifting the largely negative public discourse on squatting - which is harder to sustain with prominent voices, such as the Law Society, Crisis, and the Housing Law Practitioners Association, opposing criminalisation. Our research has helped inform these voices.
SQUASH worked to mobilise over 2,000 responses to the government’s consultation and 96% of respondents were opposed to criminalisation. This included such unlikely bedfellows as the Police, Magistrates and even one Landlords Association[4].
After the announcement of Clause 26, SQUASH called for a mass ‘sleep out’ outside Parliament to show the government that if you force the homeless out of the squats then they will be present en masse in the streets. Hundreds came. The police responded by stating that our presence outside Parliament constituted an unauthorised protest as we hadn’t given seven days notice. The irony being that there were only six days in total between the clause being announced and it being voted through, and that the law about protest outside Parliament (SOCPA 132) is basically being repealed. As a result of this, 17 people were arrested after being kettled and beaten by the police. The next day, despite the best efforts of the police, campaigners were able to get into Parliament to brief their MPs, on the undemocratic and socially damaging proposals. This meant that nearly all of the points of our briefings were made by Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green MPs, including the Labour shadow Justice Minister. With the bill now at the Lords, we are continuing the campaign and working to pressure the Lords to limit the worst of the criminalisation. There will be more actions over the coming months. Has it been successful? Within the context of our supposed ‘democracy’, the government’s reflex of ignoring the 96% is, unfortunately, unsurprising. But the expression of such large opposition to criminalisation within the consultation process has revealed how totally undemocratic the government’s criminalisation of squatting is. Only seven people out of 2,217 responded to the consultation to say that their residential property had been squatted and they considered squatting to be a problem. If all we had were corporate media stories to go by it would be harder to show how those baying for criminalisation are in the vast minority. I think that the exclusion of commercial properties from Clause 26 is partly because of this massive show of opposition to criminalisation, with the government still trying to present themselves as making some kind of ‘compromise’ as a result. The MPs briefing was crucial, as it ensured that key arguments were raised by MPs in the House of Commons debate, giving a mandate to the Lords to limit the worst elements of the proposed legislation and to pursue amendments to it - for example limiting criminalisation to residential properties which have been empty for less than six months. Organising against the criminalisation has provided squatters with a very real base for a longer term fight and a stronger squatters' movement, one able to sustain its own support infrastructure for when criminalisation comes into force. How has SQUASH worked with other groups? SQUASH have been successful in generating support and action from a diverse set of groups - from the Housing Law Practitioners Society to homelessness charities such as Crisis. We have been able to share resources, information and research, which has been immensely helpful. There are loads of housing law experts who are interested in analysing and providing technical arguments against the proposed legislation. Crisis have done some good research to show how the most vulnerable homeless people rely upon squatting. We are organising with student groups across the UK, to show how any further criminalisation of trespass is a fundamental threat to occupations. And the Advisory Service for Squatters is, with their invaluable work, is a source of constant inspiration. How is the current housing crisis affecting what SQUASH has been doing? The current housing crisis is central to what SQUASH are doing. The criminalisation of squatting is an attack on a key survival strategy of homeless people, at a time when they are growing in number and their other options are rapidly decreasing. When viewed from this perspective, it is less surprising that the Tories have chosen to uphold the ‘rights’ of property over people. Their major concern is to protect the accumulation of those who possess so much that they can afford to keep property empty, at the expense of the further dispossession of those with the least. Criminalising squatting is one act of enclosure amongst many within the Con-Dem government’s privatisation agenda. Do you think the state of the corporate housing industry today makes it harder for groups like SQUASH to resist? Privatisation and corporatisation has made it harder to resist the impacts of the housing crisis via more traditional routes such as rent strikes. The fragmentation of our experiences of housing is mirrored in the dispersed nature of the Con-Dem government’s attacks: it is happening on all fronts whilst we have long lost many of the communalities which made it easier to resist in the past. But this is not to say that such resistance is forever lost. Far from it. Squatting is a brilliant tactic for exposing corporate interests - the majority of empty buildings are owned by large corporations, banks, offshore companies, and local authorities transferring public housing stock into the hands of private developers. Can you see any improvements needed in the current housing direct action movement? With the economic crisis, and the present government’s attacks on housing provision, such as the severe cuts to housing benefit, many more people are closer to homelessness. The numbers of ‘hidden homeless’ are increasing - people sleeping on friends sofas, in temporary accommodation, such as B&Bs;, or in squats. Research shows that 40% of homeless people have squatted to avoid sleeping rough. In essence, squatting is a fundamental survival strategy. In the context of crisis and increasing numbers having to rely upon squatting as a solution to their housing needs it also holds the potential to be a fundamental act of resistance to the wider attack on the right to housing in the UK. However, there is much to be done to realise this fully - more public, visible direct actions are vital. The squatting movement must now start to set the agenda by showing the wider public the value of being able to squat in empty residential buildings, and the act of enclosure which is criminalisation. But there are also many more links between different struggles which are needed to create a real housing direct action movement. One of these is between vulnerably housed tenants, both in council or ‘social’ housing and in private accommodation, and squatters. Squatters often have great skills in resisting eviction. As more people face being evicted from their homes, either because of the closure of council housing or the inability to keep up with increasing rent or mortgage repayments, evictions could become moments of solidarity that would enable interesting links to be made and would see the growth of a larger movement around housing. People interested in getting involved with SQUASH and the fight to stop the criminalisation of squatting can contact us at: info@squashcampaign.org
References
[1] www.squashcampaign.org/blog
[2] www.crossroadswomen.net/Crossroads%20Women%20History%20of%20Centre.htm
[3] Both available on the SQUASH website:
Criminalising the Vulnerable and the older SQUASH briefings are here: www.squashcampaign.org/mps-briefing-on-legal-aid-bill-amendments/
and the MP’s Briefing here: www.squashcampaign.org/mps-briefing-on-legal-aid-bill-amendments/
[4] www.squashcampaign.org/2011/10/government-bypasses-democracy-to-sneak-through-anti-squatting-laws/
After the announcement of Clause 26, SQUASH called for a mass ‘sleep out’ outside Parliament to show the government that if you force the homeless out of the squats then they will be present en masse in the streets. Hundreds came. The police responded by stating that our presence outside Parliament constituted an unauthorised protest as we hadn’t given seven days notice. The irony being that there were only six days in total between the clause being announced and it being voted through, and that the law about protest outside Parliament (SOCPA 132) is basically being repealed. As a result of this, 17 people were arrested after being kettled and beaten by the police. The next day, despite the best efforts of the police, campaigners were able to get into Parliament to brief their MPs, on the undemocratic and socially damaging proposals. This meant that nearly all of the points of our briefings were made by Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green MPs, including the Labour shadow Justice Minister. With the bill now at the Lords, we are continuing the campaign and working to pressure the Lords to limit the worst of the criminalisation. There will be more actions over the coming months. Has it been successful? Within the context of our supposed ‘democracy’, the government’s reflex of ignoring the 96% is, unfortunately, unsurprising. But the expression of such large opposition to criminalisation within the consultation process has revealed how totally undemocratic the government’s criminalisation of squatting is. Only seven people out of 2,217 responded to the consultation to say that their residential property had been squatted and they considered squatting to be a problem. If all we had were corporate media stories to go by it would be harder to show how those baying for criminalisation are in the vast minority. I think that the exclusion of commercial properties from Clause 26 is partly because of this massive show of opposition to criminalisation, with the government still trying to present themselves as making some kind of ‘compromise’ as a result. The MPs briefing was crucial, as it ensured that key arguments were raised by MPs in the House of Commons debate, giving a mandate to the Lords to limit the worst elements of the proposed legislation and to pursue amendments to it - for example limiting criminalisation to residential properties which have been empty for less than six months. Organising against the criminalisation has provided squatters with a very real base for a longer term fight and a stronger squatters' movement, one able to sustain its own support infrastructure for when criminalisation comes into force. How has SQUASH worked with other groups? SQUASH have been successful in generating support and action from a diverse set of groups - from the Housing Law Practitioners Society to homelessness charities such as Crisis. We have been able to share resources, information and research, which has been immensely helpful. There are loads of housing law experts who are interested in analysing and providing technical arguments against the proposed legislation. Crisis have done some good research to show how the most vulnerable homeless people rely upon squatting. We are organising with student groups across the UK, to show how any further criminalisation of trespass is a fundamental threat to occupations. And the Advisory Service for Squatters is, with their invaluable work, is a source of constant inspiration. How is the current housing crisis affecting what SQUASH has been doing? The current housing crisis is central to what SQUASH are doing. The criminalisation of squatting is an attack on a key survival strategy of homeless people, at a time when they are growing in number and their other options are rapidly decreasing. When viewed from this perspective, it is less surprising that the Tories have chosen to uphold the ‘rights’ of property over people. Their major concern is to protect the accumulation of those who possess so much that they can afford to keep property empty, at the expense of the further dispossession of those with the least. Criminalising squatting is one act of enclosure amongst many within the Con-Dem government’s privatisation agenda. Do you think the state of the corporate housing industry today makes it harder for groups like SQUASH to resist? Privatisation and corporatisation has made it harder to resist the impacts of the housing crisis via more traditional routes such as rent strikes. The fragmentation of our experiences of housing is mirrored in the dispersed nature of the Con-Dem government’s attacks: it is happening on all fronts whilst we have long lost many of the communalities which made it easier to resist in the past. But this is not to say that such resistance is forever lost. Far from it. Squatting is a brilliant tactic for exposing corporate interests - the majority of empty buildings are owned by large corporations, banks, offshore companies, and local authorities transferring public housing stock into the hands of private developers. Can you see any improvements needed in the current housing direct action movement? With the economic crisis, and the present government’s attacks on housing provision, such as the severe cuts to housing benefit, many more people are closer to homelessness. The numbers of ‘hidden homeless’ are increasing - people sleeping on friends sofas, in temporary accommodation, such as B&Bs;, or in squats. Research shows that 40% of homeless people have squatted to avoid sleeping rough. In essence, squatting is a fundamental survival strategy. In the context of crisis and increasing numbers having to rely upon squatting as a solution to their housing needs it also holds the potential to be a fundamental act of resistance to the wider attack on the right to housing in the UK. However, there is much to be done to realise this fully - more public, visible direct actions are vital. The squatting movement must now start to set the agenda by showing the wider public the value of being able to squat in empty residential buildings, and the act of enclosure which is criminalisation. But there are also many more links between different struggles which are needed to create a real housing direct action movement. One of these is between vulnerably housed tenants, both in council or ‘social’ housing and in private accommodation, and squatters. Squatters often have great skills in resisting eviction. As more people face being evicted from their homes, either because of the closure of council housing or the inability to keep up with increasing rent or mortgage repayments, evictions could become moments of solidarity that would enable interesting links to be made and would see the growth of a larger movement around housing. People interested in getting involved with SQUASH and the fight to stop the criminalisation of squatting can contact us at: info@squashcampaign.org
References
[1] www.squashcampaign.org/blog
[2] www.crossroadswomen.net/Crossroads%20Women%20History%20of%20Centre.htm
[3] Both available on the SQUASH website:
Criminalising the Vulnerable and the older SQUASH briefings are here: www.squashcampaign.org/mps-briefing-on-legal-aid-bill-amendments/
and the MP’s Briefing here: www.squashcampaign.org/mps-briefing-on-legal-aid-bill-amendments/
[4] www.squashcampaign.org/2011/10/government-bypasses-democracy-to-sneak-through-anti-squatting-laws/
Download