JUST how far should a householder go in defending their property against burglars? This has long been a potent question - and one in search of a proper answer.

Vale of York MP Anne McIntosh was today trying to give householders greater rights with the introduction of a new Householder Protection Bill. She was backed in this aim by another local Tory MP, the would-be Conservative leader David Davis.

Other MPs have tried and failed with similar private members' bills, most recently another Tory, Patrick Mercer, who last year proposed a similar bill which would have allowed householders to use all but "grossly disproportionate" violence in defending themselves or their property.

That bill collapsed because it failed to win the support of Labour MPs - although Prime Minister Tony Blair later indicated that he was sympathetic to a change in the law. So did Mr Blair really mean this or was this another of his fine statements that go nowhere much? If he was serious, he should indicate his support for Ms McIntosh's bill.

The problem with changing the law is that it can become bogged down in a legal quagmire of argument as lawyers argue over what is or is not proportionate. In the heat of the moment, a householder faced with a burglar has no time to ponder such legal niceties.

Blind instinct takes over - and if an intruder is injured while breaking into a house, there should be no danger that the burglar will later be able to sue the householder.

People have a right to feel safe in their own homes and Ms McIntosh's bill is a step in the right direction.

Updated: 10:34 Friday, October 28, 2005