Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Public Bill Committee, 6 May 2003.

Standing Committee G

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill the Standing Committee, in addition to its first sitting on Tuesday 6th May at 10.30 am, shall meet on that day at 4.30 pm and thereafter on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 9.10 am and 2.30 pm;

(2) 12 sittings shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill in Committee;

(3) the proceedings shall be taken in the order specified in the Table below;

(4) the proceedings specified in the first column of the Table shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Part 1, New Clauses relating to Part 1, New Schedules relating to Part 1

9.55 pm at the 2nd sitting

Part 3, New Clauses relating to Part 3, New Schedules relating to Part 3, Part 4, New Clauses relating to Part 4, New Schedules relating to Part 4, Clauses 12 to 14, Schedule 1, Clauses 15 to 17, New Clauses relating to Part 2, New Schedules relating to Part 2

6.55 pm at the 6th sitting

Clauses 36 to 39, Schedule 2, Clauses 40 and 41, New Clauses relating to Part 5, New Schedules relating to Part 5, Part 6, New Clauses relating to Part 6, New Schedules relating to Part 6, Clauses 45 to 47

6.55 pm at the 10th sitting

Clauses 48 to 55, New Clauses relating to Part 7, New Schedules relating to Part 7, Clause 56, Schedule 3, Clauses 57 to 61, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill

5.15 pm at the 12th sitting

Good morning, Mr. O'Brien, and welcome to the Chair. I am sure that you are as pleased as every other hon. Member to be in Committee Room 11 on this bright and sunny morning as we get down to dealing with the detail of the proposals in the Bill.

I ask the Committee to agree to the programme motion recommended by the Programming Sub-Committee, which met briefly on Tuesday 29 April. The motion provides for a further 11 sittings, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, from 9.10 until 11.25 am, and 2.30 until 6.55 pm, except for today, which, as anyone who has been a Whip knows, is not really a Tuesday but a Monday—[Interruption.] At least one member of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), gets the joke. As a Whip, he is familiar with the deliberations about when a Monday is a Monday and a Tuesday is a Tuesday. Today, we shall meet from 4.30 until 9.55 pm.

More important, the programme motion determines which parts of the Bill will be considered

during which sittings. It allocates the first two sittings to part 1; four sittings to parts 3, 4 and 2; four sittings to parts 5 and 6; and two sittings to parts 7 and 8. We have tried to allocate time to ensure that the Committee has an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill fully. The timetable is potentially challenging, but my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East has had discussions with his counterparts in the Opposition parties and has indicated to them that if there is a desire to make sensible changes to the proposals, he will be prepared to listen to the arguments.

Given the high level of interest in the issues raised by the Bill, as demonstrated by the number of speakers on Second Reading, I am sure that we shall have some interesting and, I hope, constructive debates. We will reflect on the Committee's arguments.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien, and other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I especially welcome the two Ministers. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), must have got up this morning thinking, ''Oh no, not another Bill.'' The poor man seems to spend most of his time handling legislation in Committee, particularly in the absence of a replacement for the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I last served on a Committee with the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), when he was in the Whips Office. I shall be fascinated to see how he takes up his responsibilities as the Bill progresses, particularly as I shall handle the issues with which he deals.

This is a mixed Bill. As Opposition Members said repeatedly on Second Reading, we seriously doubt whether much of it is necessary—there are existing powers, although they are not adequately used. We will challenge some parts of the Bill directly, either because they go too far in terms of infringing liberty or because they will not have the effect that the Government and, indeed, the Opposition would like. We all share the objective of reducing antisocial behaviour. Our amendments have been tabled in the spirit of trying to improve the Bill or to probe Ministers about their intentions and ways in which the Bill differs from current legislation. The amendments are serious: our intention is not to prolong proceedings on any particular items.

The Minister said that there was much to be dealt with in the timetable specified in the programme motion. I believe that that can be achieved, but take at face value the undertakings given by the hon. Member for Nottingham, East that there will be flexibility if necessary. My hon. Friends and I are anxious that the important points of the Bill should be dealt with properly and that the Government should be challenged where necessary. I am sure that the Minister will respond as well as he can, and I welcome that.

I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Mr. O'Brien. We are content with the programme

motion, subject to the undertaking to which the Minister referred, that it will be open to discussion if we find ourselves running adrift.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

We, too, are pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. O'Brien, and we welcome the Ministers to the Committee.

The Bill is a hotch-potch: it has many different elements and straddles many issues. Although we agree with some of the sentiments, we believe that they should be dealt with under other legislation. We welcome the opportunity for full scrutiny and believe that the flexibility proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, East will be helpful.

The Minister will be aware that we have particular concerns about the treatment of young people throughout the Bill. We are sad that there has been no formal consultation with young people. We want to examine that important area and we will make as many relevant comments on it as possible. We are concerned about antisocial behaviour but we want to involve and include young people so that they grow up to be responsible members of society. We look forward to working on the Bill constructively.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Before we consider clause 1 and amendments to it, I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room. I also remind members of the Committee that adequate notice of amendments should be given. As a general rule, I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.

I appeal to Committee members, and to anyone else in the Room, to ensure that their mobile phones are switched off, so that there are no disturbances during consideration of the Bill.

Clause 1 - Closure notice

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in

clause 1, page 1, line 4, after 'if', insert

'the Chief Executive of a Local Authority or'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 11, in

clause 1, page 2, line 9, after 'constable', insert

'or an officer of a local authority'.

Amendment No. 12, in

clause 1, page 2, line 24, after 'constable', insert 'or local authority officer'.

Amendment No. 16, in

clause 2, page 2, line 38, after 'constable' insert 'or local authority officer'.

Amendment No. 26, in

clause 3, page 3, line 42, at end insert

'or a local authority officer'.

Amendment No. 27, in

clause 5, page 4, line 22, after 'constable' insert

'or a local authority officer'.

Amendment No. 29, in

clause 5, page 4, line 25, at end insert

'or local authority Chief Executive'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I welcome you, Mr. O'Brien, as Chairman of the Committee, as well as the Ministers and other Committee members.

We begin with an important group of amendments. It will not have escaped the Committee's attention that at present there appear to be more groups of amendments to clause 1 than to any other clause. It is good to begin the debate with a significant issue. The amendments address a matter relating to local authorities and the lead amendment would insert a reference to the local authority chief executive. We want to amend the clause so that the chief executive has the opportunity to deal with so-called crack houses. We believe that to be extremely important and so have tabled related amendments to clauses 2, 3 and 5, but amendment No. 4 is the crucial amendment.

I will say little about the amendment because I want to listen carefully to the Minister's response to it. However, I will say that it is vital that the chief executive of a local authority should have the opportunity to take the initiative in these matters—it should not be only for a police officer to take the initiative, because often it is local authorities that become aware of the these major problems through their work. Other parts of the Bill deal with local authorities, so it is surprising that the Government chose not to give such an ability to chief executives such as Mr. Barry Catchpole, the chief executive of Surrey Heath borough council—the main local authority in my constituency—and a leading member of the crime and disorder partnership, with whom I have had many dealings over the years.

The Minister and I are opposite numbers—the Minister is responsible for drugs policy and I am the shadow Minister responsible for drugs policy—and he will be well aware from previous discussions that I take all drug issues very seriously. I know from all my discussions with Mr. Catchpole that he would find such a power useful, and I suspect that if we talked to SOLACE—the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers—we would find that many chief executives take the same view.

If we are to crack down on drug use, we must take into consideration the powers that local authorities need to deal with the menace of drugs. The Opposition believe that it is absolutely vital to involve not only the police, but local authorities as well. The Government's own logic in setting up crime and disorder partnerships and involving chief executives and senior officers of local authorities in work with the police seems to fall in line with the amendment.

There are other important issues to deal with in relation to this group of amendments and I would be out of order if I advanced too far arguments relating to other groups. The amendment is not simply probing, but is a serious attempt to improve the Bill

so that it works better. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, many parts of the Bill are probably unnecessary, but we accept that any attempt by the Government to deal with the endemic problem of crack houses is a serious matter. They have signalled for some time that they planned a measure similar to this one, but we are worried that some of their measures are not tough enough—I will talk about the use of other classes of drugs when speaking to another group of amendments.

If the powers in clause 1 are to be introduced, a power given to the chief executive of a local authority to initiate matters would be useful. That has come home to me in the past few days. There was a massive seizure of drugs in my constituency over the weekend; I congratulate Surrey police and their chief constable, Denis O'Connor, for the work that led to the seizure, the latest of a series that involved large-scale drug dealing and importation rather than so-called crack houses. It was sufficiently significant to make the national press as well as the local newspapers—the Minister may have seen the story: I am sure that his officials brief him whenever major drugs seizures anywhere in the country get into the national press.

Even in a relatively prosperous constituency such as mine there are deprived areas in which people suffer the scourge of drugs and other areas in which prosperous people are involved in drug dealing. To deal with the scourge of drugs, it would be logical if not only the police but people such as chief executives of local authorities to have the necessary powers. Ministers have made many speeches and released many press statements about the scourge of crack houses and how they can damage areas, and we agree with them, but if we are to respond to such problems—not only in my constituency but anywhere in the country—the Government should give chief executives the power to initiate proceedings, especially given that they are involved in crime and disorder partnerships,.

That is all that I want to say in moving the amendment, but I hope that the Minister takes what we say seriously. I shall listen with interest to his response. We feel strongly about the amendment and I am minded to press it to a Division.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I will speak briefly, but I first want to say that we welcome this part of the Bill. It is well drafted, and I say that in a positive spirit.

We have great concerns about amendment No. 4. We strongly support the crime and disorder partnerships, which make everyone work together, but we feel that the power to initiate proceedings should rest with the police, working closely with the local authority. I noted that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, ''If we talk to chief executives,'' but I do not know whether any consultation has taken place and I have not seen any representations. Furthermore, the Liberal Democrats believe that there will be ambiguity within two-tier local government areas, as several different chief

executives in a crossover of councils might be involved. Our main concern is that a closure order is a police matter.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

On the hon. Lady's point about two-tier local authority areas, which is the situation in my part of Surrey, giving the local authority chief executive the power would not mean that one chief executive always has to ask another chief executive. We are not talking about extra complications. The amendment says simply that any chief executive, with the backing of his or her local authority, should have the power to take the initiative.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the Minister will deal with that point.

My main thrust is that the police should deal with policing. Local authority officers serving a closure order would be accompanied by the police in most circumstances, as it would be a dangerous situation. The power should be firmly located with the police.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for the way in which he introduced the amendment. I fully accept his point that it is moved only in the desire to improve the Bill, but I hope that, as I have listened to him, he will listen to me, because we have problems with the amendment.

Those problems are largely in line with the points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). I am glad to see that she supports at least this part of the Bill. She has said that she supports other parts of the Bill but wants them dealt with in another place some time in the future. It sounded a bit like what I call the prayer of the tempted—''O God, make me pure, but not yet''—when she said that she supported parts of the Bill but that they should be dealt with in other vehicles or at another time. The Government believe that antisocial behaviour is an urgent problem. Other vehicles could adequately be used for some measures against antisocial behaviour, but we need to press on with the measures in this Bill.

On the amendment, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath should know that we proposed the new powers as an additional resource to aid the police in combating the scourge of class A drugs, which destroys communities. They are strong, quick and effective powers for the police to protect communities from the substantial nuisance and disorder that is often associated with the use and supply of class A drugs. The powers are not designed to replace the use of the criminal law. Where there is evidence of the unlawful use and supply of drugs, the police will continue to prosecute vigorously under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

The amendments would extend the proposed powers to local authority officers, and I can appreciate why the hon. Gentleman feels as he does; many hon. Members might consider such an extension worthwhile. However, for a number of reasons, it would not be appropriate. I hope that he realises that it might be dangerous to enter premises in which there is serious nuisance or disorder to present a closure notice to its inhabitants, some of whom might be involved in the use or supply of class A drugs. The

powers should be maintained as a police power because police oversight and direction will be vital to their successful use.

The powers should be exercised in consultation with local authorities. In cases in which two local authorities are involved, it will be necessary to consult with both, as social services might be provided at one level and housing at another. The draw on social services as a result of the action taken under the powers may be significant, and the housing authority will have to be involved. Co-operation with the local authority or authorities is essential, which is why we have specified that they must be consulted when a closure notice is made. However, police resources and experience in handling such sensitive operational information and cases will ensure the effective use of the powers. It will also ensure that they are used strategically, as part of local action plans against persistent drug dealing.

Local authorities play an important role in partnership with the police in tackling the nuisance of crack houses. Given the nature of the operations and the potential risks involved, we believe that the powers are properly vested in the police. I am sure that no Committee member would want the situation to arise in which a local authority, having consulted the police but without having gained their consent, initiated action in cases in which the police had ongoing operations. In such matters the police must take a lead because they have the necessary strategic overview and because of the dangers involved. It is not appropriate for local authorities to be in the lead in such actions, although they should be involved.

I hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will reflect on my words and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I thank the Minister for his serious and considered response. I have listened carefully to him, but this has to be a judgment call. I am grateful for his acknowledgment that we are not proposing that local authorities go off on a frolic of their own without consulting the police.

Of course I would be happy if, at a later stage, the Government were to table an amendment to the effect that local authorities could initiate action, but only after full discussion with the police to ensure that no ongoing police surveillance plans were jeopardised. That would be a useful safeguard. However, we strongly feel that sometimes—less often in my local authority than in other local authorities of which I am aware—the local authority desperately wants to deal with something and for some reason the police are obstructive.

I remind the Minister of an occasion during the tenure of his boss, the present Home Secretary, when there was a massive difference of opinion between an authority and a chief constable in Sussex. Partly because of that difference of opinion and partly because of a history of other matters, as a result of the Home Secretary's initiative, the chief constable of Sussex departed his office. We do not wish to go over that sad history, but I am sure that the Minister is aware that there are occasions on which local

authorities see a huge problem—perhaps the existence of a crack house—but are not able to win over the police.

To some extent, that issue is linked to the question of which groups of controlled drugs are governed by this part of the Bill. I will try to persuade the Government that they should extend the Bill to deal with matters well beyond the narrow field of crack houses and class A drugs. I will also suggest that police officers of a lesser rank should be involved. To some extent, it is difficult to talk about the current group of amendments in isolation, because they are linked to others and thus form a pattern showing how we feel this part of the Bill could be improved. We believe that giving a local authority chief executive, in consultation with the police, the power to initiate action is a vital aspect of that improvement.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain the manner in which a local authority that wishes to close down a crack house that the police do not wish to close down will serve notice? There is a growing problem with gun crime in this country and much of it is associated with drugs. The next step I can envisage is that the Conservatives will propose that we have armed local authority officers who will be able to serve notice on crack houses. Is that the logic of the amendment, or does it mean that if local authority officers have served notice, armed police are then required to accompany them to do something that they do not wish to do? There is a degree of ambiguity and I would like the hon. Gentleman to explain his position.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) points out that perhaps the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) has not yet recovered from the bad night that he and his party had last Thursday. Until he intervened, we were having a serious debate on serious issues. I do not think that his was a sensible intervention—nobody is proposing that we have armed local authority officials. He will see later how we wish to deal with serving notice.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I have absolutely no objection to the hon. Gentleman's slapping down the Liberal Democrats, but he must address the point. We are talking about very dangerous circumstances. He accepts that consultation should take place and that the power should be used strategically. Does he envisage consultation taking place at the appropriate level and the local authority, without the agreement of the police, making the decision to close down a crack house? What if police investigations are ongoing, with a view to prosecution? What if for some reason the police do not feel able to share information fully with the local authority? We cannot allow a local authority to initiate action in this area.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I have already said that I do not agree with the Minister about that. I will make my position clear to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Ludlow. I am not proposing that the local authority should be able to take action willy-nilly, completely ignoring the police. The Minister knows perfectly well that in most cases local authority chief executives work closely with the police in crime and

disorder partnerships. All I am saying is that it should be made clear in the Bill that the chief executive of a local authority should have the opportunity to initiate proceedings, after consultation with the police.

I have already told the Minister that I am quite happy for him to rewrite our proposal in such a way that gives a wider role to the chief executives of local authorities. I think that it would be a useful additional power, but there is no point in going around the course again. I have heard what the Minister has said and he has heard what I have said. I wish to press the amendment to a division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 11.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in

clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out 'Superintendent' and insert 'Inspector'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 28, in

clause 5, page 4, line 25, leave out 'superintendent' and insert 'inspector'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

In contrast to the previous group of amendments, these raise issues that we want to probe with the Minister. Although it would be helpful for police officers of a slightly lower rank than superintendent to have the powers in the clause, we do not feel as strongly about the issue as we did about the previous group of amendments. None the less, it would be helpful to hear why the rank of superintendent was chosen. I know from the many debates in which the Minister and I have been involved in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and from my years spent practising at the Bar, that officers of the rank of inspector or above are given specific powers in several areas of the law. Restricting the powers in the clause to officers of the rank of superintendent may cause some operational difficulties.

I tabled the amendments before the Easter recess—well before I had the opportunity to talk to senior members of the Police Federation, who were at a reception in the Palace of Westminster last Wednesday afternoon. The event was held under the auspices of the all-party group on police. It so happened that my representative from Surrey was unable to attend, so the chairman of the Police Federation, Jan Berry,

asked me to have a discussion with the inspector responsible for co-ordinating all the inspectors and chief inspectors in the country on behalf of the Police Federation.

The inspector works in the Met, and we talked about areas of the country where issues had arisen that related to his job of representing chief inspectors and inspectors in the Met. This is relevant to the amendments, and I hope that the Minister will take seriously what I say, because I am passing on what I was told by the representative of all inspectors and chief inspectors in the Police Federation. The inspector told me that there was a great shortage of chief inspectors and inspectors in five areas. The shortage is such that the Police Federation has reported the five forces in those areas for not recording the hours worked by their chief inspectors and inspectors. Those officers are working far more hours than they should be because of the shortage.

That situation causes problems that can be a matter of grave public concern. The inspector mentioned an issue that recently arose in Norfolk. I know that area extremely well because all the members of my mother's family live there. Indeed, one of my uncles recently finished his turn as a lay member of the police authority. The Minister may know that there was a very serious firearms incident there. His officials will certainly have heard about it, because it caused considerable comment.

During the incident, there were not enough inspectors and chief inspectors to go around, and there were certainly no superintendents. As a result, a sergeant, who was acting up to inspector, was put in charge. Unfortunately, he had not had all the appropriate training—he was only a sergeant and had only just started as an acting inspector. As a result, certain mistakes were made. I shall not bore the Committee with the details. I am sure that the Minister knows them or can find them out. The point that the man from the Police Federation was making to me last Wednesday afternoon was that this is a serious problem. If there is such a shortage of chief inspectors and inspectors, and an even worse shortage of superintendents—the man from the Police Federation is not responsible for them—I can envisage a situation in which there is no superintendent around to make the decisions. If the Bill at least said that an inspector or perhaps a sergeant who had had the right training and who was acting up to inspector could take the relevant decisions, there would be less of a problem.

Therefore, there is an important, wider point that is not relevant to the Committee but that I hope the Minister will take away. The message that I got from the Police Federation and the person who is directly responsible for liasing with all chief inspectors and inspectors who are members of the federation perhaps reinforces the point that we are making with amendments Nos. 5 and 28. The higher up the ranking one goes, the greater the danger that the right person of the right rank may not be available. Therefore, the amendment would help to strengthen the Bill and provide more flexibility.

Inspector is a fairly serious rank in the police. An inspector or an acting inspector is given decision-making powers on many aspects of the law. It would be perfectly appropriate not to restrict the powers in the clause to the very senior rank of superintendent. I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously, as we are attempting to probe him and improve the Bill.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The hon. Gentleman asks me to explain our thinking in setting the authorisation at the level that we have. To a degree, some of the thinking on the matter harks back to the debate about how we envisage the powers being used.

To be most effective, the police officer who is authorising the use of the powers needs to be of sufficiently high rank to have an overview of all the law enforcement action being conducted in the area. Although police will obviously act with caution, the officer who is authorising the use of the powers will be able to liase and consult effectively on other operations and with the relevant partners at a senior level—specifically, local authorities. It would be an unwanted complication if other sensitive police operations that were unknown at inspector level were compromised by the use of the powers. A superintendent can ensure that there are sufficient safeguards and that regard is paid to the impact on other operations when the powers are used.

The authorisation of a superintendent is required in circumstances involving several other offences. The most notable of the powers available to the superintendent are those in section 42 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to continue the detention of suspects, and those in section 56 to hold a detained person incommunicado. Those powers should be used as a planned response to a problem based on detailed consideration. Although the powers are designed to be able to be used quickly, the decision to use them should not be made instantly, as would normally be the case in authorisations that one could expect when operational command is assumed at the inspector level. We therefore expect the powers to be confirmed by a superintendent.

That is why we have set the level as we have. I understand what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said about the availability of officers in particular circumstances. We expect consultation to take place and a strategic decision to be taken. That is our thinking behind the decision to set the powers at the superintendent level, and that is where the authorisation ought to be.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Just for clarification, if a crack house were also under investigation for, say, terrorist activities by the security forces or special branch, would an inspector know that that activity was taking place and that the security forces were involved? Would not a superintendent be more likely to know such information?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I alluded to the example that the hon. Gentleman mentions. In that case, it would be necessary for the person giving the authorisation to have a strategic overview of all the policing operations in a particular locality. If we required approval at

inspector level, I do not believe that we could adequately ensure that there is always a strategic overview, so authorisation should be at superintendent level. A superintendent ought to have an overview of everything that is going on, whether it involves terrorism or organised crime, and whether there is an investigation of the individuals concerned. That strategic knowledge is necessary before these powers are employed.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I am minded to bring to my hon. Friend's attention the concerns of the police force in my area, which have some validity. It points out that superintendents are not operational 24/7 but that inspectors are. If we want instant responses, involving an inspector rather than a superintendent could be of more value to operational efficiency.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

My hon. Friend has a heavy constituency case load, as I do. It would be highly desirable if a nuisance that started at 3 o'clock in the morning, with activities in a crack house waking the neighbours and causing mayhem, could be stopped by 4 o'clock. I am fully aware of the nuisance that is caused on those occasions, and I am sure that such problems occur in Stockton, as they do in Coventry. Attractive though that idea is, we cannot support it. This power is additional to the panoply of existing powers. There is nothing to prevent a constable from taking action through the criminal law against the individuals concerned. However, a strategic overview is required if someone's home is to be sealed up, and they are to be evicted and moved on to the streets. There also needs to be knowledge of other investigations that are going on.

I am sure that my hon. Friend and other members of the Committee have occasionally been driven to distraction by complaints from constituents about nuisance emanating from particular premises. The local police have sometimes decided not to do anything about it for the time being because of an ongoing investigation. The nuisance has continued, and the neighbours have continued to be severely inconvenienced, but we have had to accept the local police commanders' explanation that they were aware of the problem but that something was under consideration or under investigation.

We do not see this as a power that can be used instantaneously at 2.30 or 3 o'clock in the morning, attractive though that may be, but it does give the police a power to shut such premises down in short order. That certainly does not happen now. Even if the police think it appropriate to close down an operation, it can be weeks before the necessary resources and intelligence are put together in order to take effective action. I am afraid we are talking about a matter of days, not minutes.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) has consulted her local police force and got the same information as I have. It was a valuable intervention. I hope that Government Back Benchers will make many more points that reinforce the seriousness of the Opposition's arguments. I said that this was a probing amendment, but it has clearly provided some useful

information, especially from the hon. Lady. Even if nothing that I said caused the Minister to have second thoughts, I am sure that that intervention from his own side will cause him to go back and talk to his officials. Who knows, the Government might come forward at a later stage with an amendment to reassure the police in Stockton in the north-east of England, and police forces throughout the country. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we are talking about what happens at the sharp end. The Minister's response showed that he takes that point seriously, and he spoke of the nuisances that can be caused and how such things happen.

During a combined operation in one of the big drugs cases that I mentioned in a previous debate, raids took place in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). It is ironic that it first came to public attention because at 5 am the police raided a flat on the floor below that of a local journalist. They woke not only the journalist, but everyone else in the building. The chances of those police raids remaining confidential until the police authority had issued a press release later in the day were zero, because the local journalist telephoned not only his own editor, but every editor in Fleet street, telling them about the massive drugs operation.

It was an extremely successful operation, although it was unfortunate that some law-abiding members of the public were disturbed. However, it shows that it is crucial for local inspectors with operational knowledge, who, as the hon. Member for Stockton, South said, work 24/7—to use the current teenage jargon—are available. Unlike superintendents, they are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

I hear what the Minister says. As I said, this is a probing amendment, and we have had a useful debate. However, given the Minister's response to me and to the hon. Member for Stockton, South, the Government will clearly have to think again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I beg to move amendment No. 185, in

clause 1, page 1, line 8, after 'use', insert ', production'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 128, in

clause 1, page 1, line 8, after 'use', insert ', manufacture'.

Government amendments Nos. 186, 187, 188 and 190.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Amendment No. 128, tabled by Liberal Democrat Members, raises a valuable point about the use of this power against premises where class A drugs are being manufactured. We agree in principle with that amendment, and we are grateful to hon. Members for raising the issue. The point is addressed in Government amendments Nos. 185 and

188. Those amendments refer to ''production'' rather than ''manufacture'', which is in line with the wording of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the United Nations treaties on drugs. It is essential that the legislation covers premises that are involved in the production of class A drugs but evidence of supply or use is not available. Action should be allowed against such premises, which are often used in organised crime at the highest level. That will also enable action to be taken against premises, which are often residential, where crack is produced—''cooked'' in the jargon—but not sold.

Amendment No. 190 provides for ''production'' and ''supply'' to have the same meaning as in the Misuse of Drugs Act. I commend the Government amendments. I ask the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman not to press amendment No. 128, as the Government amendments have the same effect but use the same language as existing legislation.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

First, I thank the Minister for writing to us on 30 April. It was a courtesy letter that, notwithstanding his earlier comments, reflects our constructive approach to the Bill.

We are delighted to be of assistance and very pleased that the Government have included the provision, as it is an important aspect of the chain of drugs supply in these houses. I thank the Minister for his response and for taking on Liberal Democrat ideas.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We have no difficulty with what the Government propose. As the Minister said, the proposal deals with the issue raised in earlier Liberal Democrat amendments. The Government have changed the Bill, adding ''production'' after the word ''use'' in every case, which strengthens the measure. We are happy to support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Before I move to the next group of amendments, there is a bit of housekeeping to do. We will consider the group in which amendment No. 13 is the lead amendment after the group in which amendment No. 10 is the lead amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in

clause 1, page 1, line 8, after 'A', insert 'B or C'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 18, in

clause 2, page 3, line 2, at end insert 'B or C'.

Amendment No. 41, in

clause 11, page 8, line 2, at end insert

'and Class B and Class C controlled drugs are controlled drugs which are Class B and Class C drugs within the meaning of that Act'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am having difficulty keeping up with the shifting groups of amendments. I am indebted to the Clerk to the Committee for keeping me posted about the changes as they take place. There was some confusion as the Easter recess commenced just when the Committee was about to start and then there was the long weekend. It gave many of us a few headaches but I hope that we now have the final order of the amendments.

Amendments Nos. 6, 18 and 41 relate to important matters about which those on the Conservative Benches feel extremely strongly. They are not merely probing amendments.

First, on a lesser point, amendment No. 41 would give head teachers the opportunity to take the initiative. The Government may not be very keen on head teachers at the moment, in view of the recent conference of the National Association of Head Teachers, which is pursuing issues that the Government do not like, although we entirely agree with everything that the NAHT has said in the past few days. Despite the Government's current difficulties with head teachers, I hope that the Minister will recognise that it would be tremendously helpful and would strengthen the Bill if head teachers were given additional powers.

The more substantial proposal is in amendments Nos. 6 and 18. They would add to the Bill reference to controlled drugs in classes B and C. I mentioned the matter in our debate on earlier amendments. The Minister has heard me say on many other occasions that the Government are sending the wrong signals to young people on the subject of drugs. Many surveys in the past year or so of teenagers at school show that they all think that cannabis has been legalised. The Home Secretary and the Minister may protest that it has not been legalised, but when considering the effect of drugs on young people, the perception of the law, however incorrect, is a political reality.

Some political parties believe in lots more legalisation of drugs and so do some Back-Bench members of the Government party—the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) is always making speeches about legalisation. The Liberal Democrats have repeatedly passed motions at their party conferences calling for the legalisation of cannabis and, to my amazement and horror, even for the legalisation of ecstasy. Some Liberal Democrats, including the hon. Member whose constituency is next to mine, have called for the legalisation of cocaine. No doubt that crass statement led to the huge advance of the Conservatives taking control of Guildford borough council from the Liberal Democrats: it led to a series of catastrophic defeats for the Liberal Democrats in my constituency and other parts of the area that come under Guildford borough council. The Liberal Democrats continue to pursue such policies. It is no surprise that, when the electorate find out their policies, they reject them comprehensively.

It would be enormously helpful if this part of the Bill were not restricted to so-called crack houses. In some ways, the situation is even more serious if premises are used to produce, distribute or manufacture class B or class C drugs, because of the larger number of addicts who are drawn into the drugs sub-culture. Even though some existing powers are not used properly, some powers in the Bill may, if the Government are right, give a few extra strings to the police's bow. If they do, we see no good reason why they should be restricted to premises used for class A controlled drugs.

The Minister knows that I had the experience in the midlands over many years, starting in the late 1970s, of prosecuting and defending in drugs cases. The drugs problem in the midlands was not quite as bad then as it has become but it was serious enough. I know the Minister's home city extremely well, because I lived there in my early years at the Bar. There was a serious drugs problem in that city, in Birmingham and in Leamington Spa. Many people wondered why on earth there was such a serious problem in Leamington Spa, because it was a nice regency town. However, I know from talking to friends who still live and work in that area that it became the centre for some of the major drug distribution in the midlands. As Members of Parliament are aware, places that look attractive and prosperous are not always immune from drugs. Sadly, they are everywhere. Every area of the country is aware that there are serious problems not only with class A controlled drugs but with class B and C drugs.

The Government say that they need the extra powers. However, it will be quite difficult to defend restricting the powers to controlled drugs in class A. There seems to be no good argument why the powers should not be available for premises that are used for class B and class C drugs. I will listen to what the Minister has to say but I suspect that he may be defending the indefensible. I am not saying that the police have to use extensive powers in every case but giving them the power when we have this legislative opportunity is very important. Surely part of our job as parliamentarians is to ensure that the police have the widest possible powers. They can then use their discretion as to which powers to use in an individual case.

I hope that the Minister will take that point seriously. I also hope, albeit not with huge optimism, that he will say that the Government agree with the Opposition and will accept the amendments. That has happened only once or twice in the many hours of Committee in which I have opposed this Minister. If the Government do not agree to our proposals today, I suspect that they may find that there is quite a degree of media comment when these matters are reported more widely. National newspapers and commentators may well ask why on earth the Government are not taking the opportunity of this legislative vehicle to give the police wider powers, not only for premises used for class A drugs but for premises used for class B and class C drugs.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

We all welcome the Bill's powers in respect of class A drugs. It is clear that wider powers are needed and we want them to be used to close those houses in which crack dealers operate and cause mayhem in many of our communities. However, I seek reassurance following the Opposition spokesman's comments about class B and class C drugs. This is an antisocial behaviour Bill, and I am sure that many of us have constituents who continually raise problems in respect of houses where class B and class C drugs are used, dealt and so on. We seek reassurance in the event of the Bill remaining as it is in respect of class A drugs. We all accept that class A drugs cause considerable problems, including, in many instances, gun crime but, in my constituency and

others, immense problems are caused by houses in which there is use of and dealing in drugs that are not class A. I ask for the Minister's assurance that the current laws and the Bill will enable the police and local authorities to deal with those problems.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I was fascinated by the contribution of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who has probably not recovered from the local elections, and by his explanation of amendment No. 41, in which he spoke about head teachers.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I apologise for that. I realise that I misread my notes between amendments Nos. 41 and 43. We will come back to head teachers later.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am glad to have got that clarification from the hon. Gentleman. Some of us were beginning to get a little worried.

The substantive point is the proposal to include classes B and C in the scope of the power. We are examining antisocial behaviour, and there is a distinct difference between the antisocial behaviour caused by premises where class A drugs are dealt or produced and by premises where class C drugs, especially cannabis, are dealt. It is fairly common knowledge that antisocial behaviour is more likely from someone who is drunk than someone who is stoned on cannabis. It has a soporific rather than an aggressive effect.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

They get silly, though. [Laughter.]

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Whatever the impact on the individual of smoking cannabis, my experience—and surely the hon. Gentleman's experience—is that the house from which the drug is being dealt has an enormous effect on the local community. That is the point. The hon. Gentleman said that we are dealing with antisocial behaviour, which is the consequence of individuals' decisions about their behaviour causing problems for the rest of the community. In my experience, that happens where cannabis is being dealt. It may not cause the gun crime that cocaine dealing brings, but its impact on the community is enormous.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman makes his point well, but there is not the same scale of problem with class A drugs and class C drugs. In a sense, that is what the Bill is examining. We are introducing the power for the first time, and we hope that it will not be necessary to use it extensively. However, when it is necessary, it will clearly need to be used to crack down on crack houses. There may be a call sometime in the future, if cannabis is still a class C drug, to take that into account, but a step is being taken to deal with the most severe end of the drugs problem.

It is clear that class A drugs, with their addictiveness, lead to the associated problems of theft to fund people's habit. We do not see that associated so much with cannabis. The problem of prostitution is also associated with class A drugs, and the premises in question may have a dual use. We do

not see that with class C drugs. I suspect that a range of drugs, from classes A, B and C, are found in some of the premises that the hon. Member for Gedling is talking about.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

On what basis does the hon. Gentleman make that statement? If he had spent time in the criminal courts, he would come have come across situations in which premises were used both for dealing cannabis—about to change from class B to class C—and for prostitution.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

That is exactly my point. I am not sure if the hon. Gentleman misheard me, but in those circumstances, the new law will be able to deal with the situation because class A drugs are being dealt from those premises. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the record will show what I was saying.

The provision to close down a house because of the possibility that cannabis, when it becomes a class C drug, is being sold could be used where there has been relatively little antisocial behaviour. In fact, further Conservative amendments would remove the antisocial element: the provision would apply only when cannabis was sold. I envisage a situation in which one's house could be closed down if it was discovered that a friend of one's children had walked in with a joint in their pocket. We must sometimes consider these matters in the round.

We cannot support the amendments, which go far too far. The Government's proposals will deal with the substantive problem, but we can reconsider them if we find that they are insufficient a few years down the line. The legislation will deal with the vast majority of the cases because most places will sell a range of drugs. I suspect that very few properties where only cannabis is sold demonstrate the same levels of antisocial behaviour as we see across the board.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I had not intended to speak, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath introduced the amendments so well, but I must respond to the hon. Member for Ludlow. I have never heard such a load of nonsense in my life. Well, I have—I have listened to Liberal Democrats before. His entire argument was predicated on the known policy of the Liberal party to legalise cannabis. The fact is that cannabis is illegal and will remain so, although I share my hon. Friend's view that there is confusion about precisely how illegal it is, given the Government's comments. As the hon. Member for Gedling rightly said, it is associated with as much antisocial behaviour as class A drugs and should be treated with a similar degree of seriousness.

To suggest that anyone who smoked a joint in their house might find it closed down as a result of the amendments is to belittle the issue and to fail to understand its importance. It does not say much for democracy if, over the next three weeks, we cannot have a more serious debate about these issues than we have heard so far from the hon. Member for Ludlow. This is a serious issue. Antisocial behaviour occurs where any class of drug is used, dealt and in some cases manufactured. It is right that the Committee should consider all drugs.

I look forward to the Minister's response to the debate. He may be able to convince us that it is

unnecessary to extend the legislation to class B and class C drugs. However, we all know that drug use can be associated with considerable levels of antisocial behaviour. I hope that members of the Committee can at least be united in their determination to clamp down on antisocial behaviour. The clause does not necessarily cover every single property, but it creates powers, and anyone who has powers has the discretion to us them.

If one person smokes a joint, I cannot for the life of me see that a superintendent will take the power to close down their house. To lower the debate to that standard of argument is pathetic. If, however, a property is clearly being used for the processing of cannabis and large numbers of people will get their cannabis there, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask the Government why such use of the property is not included under the powers in the clause. I hope that the Minister will take that as the argument, rather than the somewhat absurd excuses that we have just heard from the Liberal Democrats.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I have a couple of brief points to make. Antisocial behaviour and drugs, be they class A, B or C, are a fact of life. In my constituency, class B and C drugs, as well as class A drugs, undermine the stability of the neighbourhoods and streets, and have become a critical issue in some areas. We are discussing a matter that has real resonance.

My first point is that, if we included class B and C drugs in the closure operation, that would deflect attention from a startlingly destructive and awful drug—crack cocaine. We should concentrate on that drug, because its effect is horrendously powerful. Some areas on the Tees are already overwhelmed by the emergence of crack cocaine as the main drug used. If we cease to concentrate on that drug and remove the focus of police activity from it, we will be far less effective.

Secondly, I hope that other legislation will respond effectively to the problems of class B and C drugs. In certain parts of my constituency, if class B and C drugs were included in closure operations, more than a third of properties would be defined as candidates for closure. The staggering scale of that, and the fact that children and young people are involved, mean that we should not enter into that debate until we understand the extent of involvement of the support services.

My first point is the more crucial of the two. The use of crack cocaine on the Tees has reached epidemic proportions: we must focus our activity on that drug so that its use can be minimised, if not eradicated. I hope that other legislation will be able to deal with class B and C drugs, without distracting our attention from class A drugs.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I strongly associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton, South, in which she summed up the situation. We are all concerned about the effects of drug taking, but the Bill focuses on antisocial behaviour, and in particular on the intensity and wide range of crime associated with serious drugs. As the hon. Lady said, it is right to

concentrate resources on class A drugs and to establish the agencies that should be involved.

I have my own views about cannabis, which may not be the same as those of the majority of my party, but I hope that the antisocial behaviour of a group of young people who regularly take cannabis would be picked up in other ways. Whatever my views about cannabis, I do not want young people to be criminalised by one act of taking that drug. I want support measures to be included in the Bill, and I believe that there are other ways to deal with behaviour caused by cannabis use. For the most part, the approach to dealing with high spirits and people getting out of control should be totally different from that used to deal with a crack house and its associated crime. That is an important distinction in the Bill.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

As this is the first time that I have contributed to the debate, I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien, and look forward to serving under your chairmanship.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I had not intended to speak to this group of amendments. However, having heard some of the arguments that have been advanced, particularly by the Liberal Democrats, I felt compelled to make a brief contribution.

In the spirit of the first day back after the local elections, I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. O'Brien, if I, too, say that the Liberal Democrats might be agitated by—

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. Stick to the amendment, if you would.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

In that case, Mr. O'Brien, I shall avoid mentioning the results in Chelmsford. The hon. Member for Gedling reminded us that the Bill is about antisocial behaviour. It is difficult for the Government to convince Committee members that they are serious about tackling antisocial behaviour if, in the first clause, they take powers to address the use of class A drugs, but not class B and class C drugs.

We Conservatives appreciate that there is a distinction between the categories of drug, but whether cannabis is categorised in class B or class C, both are illegal. That is important to note, because if we are to believe that the Bill is not a legislative gimmick and the Government mean what they say, clause 1 should make the powers available, with discretion, against houses that actively trade in, and in some cases produce, class B and class C drugs.

The Government's mistake at the first hurdle is to say that they are serious about tackling antisocial behaviour and quality of life issues, but to introduce an important power to tackle only class A drugs, not class B or class C drugs. The hon. Member for Gedling fairly pointed out that class B and class C drugs have implications in terms of antisocial behaviour and quality of life. They are dangerous substances and antisocial behaviour tends to occur in properties in which such drugs are used. It might be that in some properties trade in drugs in all three classes takes

place, but that is not always the case. In some properties, the inhabitants are discreetly involved in class B and class C drugs.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that we are discussing focusing activity and using police time effectively to tackle the epidemic use of extraordinarily powerful and dangerous drugs? His argument would lead to the addition of alcohol and tobacco to the clause.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

With respect to the hon. Lady, that is not my argument. This is not an anti-drugs Bill; it is an antisocial behaviour Bill. Therefore, while it is important to tackle the menace of class A drugs—there is unanimous agreement in the Committee about that—it is also important to tackle antisocial behaviour in this context. That is what the Bill is meant to be about. Our argument, articulately made by my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for Surrey Heath, is that a lot of antisocial behaviour is associated with class B and class C drugs and that if the Government were really serious about tackling antisocial behaviour in the context of the Bill, they would extend the powers to cover those classes of narcotic.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

Is the hon. Gentleman denying or disputing the advice of the police, which is that, fairly universally, the antisocial behaviour associated with class B and class C drugs is shoplifting, pinching purses from old ladies and similar activities? Those are things that users of those drugs most commonly do. Does he deny that?

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

There are two points to make. First, I do not doubt that class A drugs are a particular problem in the hon. Lady's constituency—she represents that part of the United Kingdom and I take her word for it. However, police officers in my constituency tell me that in my part of the world a lot of the antisocial behaviour is centred around class B and to some degree class C drugs. Secondly, she herself argued that if the powers were to be taken literally, one third of the houses in her constituency might be subject to closure because they have some involvement with class B or C drugs. If that is true, she can hardly argue that a third of her constituents being affected would not be a serious problem.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

If the hon. Gentleman talked to the police, he would find that one of the biggest causes of antisocial behaviour around the country is the illegal sale of large quantities of alcohol. The sale of alcohol from premises and out of windows—I have seen videos of it—is probably a far more significant cause of antisocial behaviour than class B or class C drugs. If there is logic in the hon. Gentleman's argument about what is taking place, why is the illegal sale of alcohol not included on the list as well?

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

The clause relates to crack houses and the use of premises for the sale of narcotics. Our argument is about which types of narcotics should be covered by the powers in the Bill. Subsection (1)(b) says:

''the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public.''

Our argument is that in a number of circumstances that definition would cover trade in or production of class B drugs and, in certain cases, class C drugs.

To return to the fundamental point of disagreement and a point on which we might have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Gedling, if the Government seriously want to tackle antisocial behaviour and the quality of life issues that are raised by the trade in drugs and its effect on communities, they would include class B and class C drugs in the Bill. We shall find out how real the Government's commitment is when the Minister sums up.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South raised the most pertinent point, which was about priorities and where the real nuisance lies. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath said that anyone who spends time in the courts will be aware that class B and class C drugs cause as much antisocial behaviour as class A drugs. The hon. Member for Rayleigh said that he had consulted the police, who told him—

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Rayleigh is pronounced ''Ray-lee''.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Sorry—I have a working class bias against saying such words as ''bath'' with a long ''a''. The hon. Gentleman will have to try to educate me in that regard, although I think that he will struggle.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

It is not a matter of class bias or anything else. Rayleigh is written with a ''y''.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I will try. The hon. Gentleman said that he consulted with the police, who told him that much antisocial behaviour is caused by class B and class C drugs. Is he talking about steroids and barbiturates? I am not at all sure what he is saying. In the interests of evidence-based lawmaking, perhaps we can be shown some evidence that there is an issue.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman I shall tell him the two things that I am told as I travel the length and breadth of the country about what the priorities should be, which is what informs our decisions about reclassification and priorities. People repeatedly tell me that crack cocaine is the big new risk, and it was our overwhelming priority in drafting the Bill. Police in several areas told me that they desperately needed the proposed powers, or powers that were at least as effective, to close down crack houses. We know that there are good policing practices in some areas: an exercise that took place in Lambeth not so long ago was designed systematically to close down crack houses, but doing so is not as easy as it needs to be, and massive nuisance is caused in the immediate vicinity of such premises.

Although we were thinking overwhelmingly about crack cocaine, I should say for the record that people who do not face such a big problem with crack cocaine tell me, ''Don't forget about heroin.'' Of course, they are right. Despite people's problems with crack cocaine, the majority of seriously addicted, problematic drug users—the ones who cause all the

costs, commit all the thefts and are involved in all the prostitution—are heroin addicts. That is where we should keep our minds clearly focused.

As the hon. Member for Rayleigh rightly said, we are talking not about a drugs Bill but about an antisocial behaviour Bill and about relieving problems in and around communities. I think that it is right that the Bill focuses on class A drugs, because they are the real the problem. I am more than happy to listen if the police in the hon. Gentleman's area are telling him that class C drugs are causing antisocial behaviour, but I am a little incredulous about that, and I would understand more if it was class B drugs they mentioned. None the less, if class C drugs are causing a lot of antisocial behaviour, I would like to seek the evidence. We may need to make legal provision if that is the case.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I want to bring the Minister back to what Conservative Members were actually saying. I do not think that my hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh and for Surrey Heath were saying that class B and class C drugs cause as much antisocial behaviour as class A drugs, and I am sure that I did not say that, but that is the suggestion that the Minister attributes to my hon. Friends. I find it difficult to believe, however, that he could suggest that they cause no antisocial behaviour.

We simply propose that clause 1 apply to class B and C drugs. The Minister has his safety net in the clause, because it would not simply apply to any house in which drugs—our argument refers to classes B or C, as well as to class A—were being used. It would apply only where

''the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance''.

That is the Minister's safeguard. Clause 1 cannot be triggered where someone is selling or smoking a class B or C drug but not causing a nuisance to the public.

I stress that no one in any way minimises the impact of crack cocaine or, indeed, heroin, which the Minister rightly mentioned. Those must be the priority not only of the Bill but of proper drugs policies. I simply do not understand why he cannot take on board the idea of giving the police the powers that we suggest so that they can take action when there is a disturbance at premises in which drugs are being used, even if they are not sure that class A drugs are being used.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I know that Conservative Members have got their press release sorted, because the hon. Member for Surrey Heath talked about newspapers being interested in the issue. I hope that I did not misrepresent them—I am not unaware of the fact that class B drugs can cause antisocial behaviour. My incredulity relates to the fact that current class C drugs are doing so. Quite genuinely, I would like to hear how that happens.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

Just to clarify the issue once and for all, I was seeking to make the point that my constituents are fortunate because they do not currently face a severe problem with class A drugs. That may change, although as the constituency MP I hope that it does not. For absolute clarification, my local police have advised me that when we see

antisocial behaviour relating to drugs in my part of the world, it is primarily related to class B drugs. When I said that it was, to a lesser extent, related to class C drugs, I was referring to cannabis's being reclassified as a class C drug. I hope that that clarifies the matter beyond peradventure.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I now understand what the hon. Gentleman said.

We are speaking of draconian powers. We are talking about throwing people out of their homes. There must be a genuine need if that is to be done. I heard what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said about safeguards in relation to another clause. Other amendments would decouple the issue of nuisance from class A drug use, and class A drug use from the issue of nuisance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to expand on the safeguards issue when we come to later clauses. Those amendments would considerably widen the powers of the Bill.

I believe that this part of the Bill should be confined to dealing with class A drugs. The evidence shows that the overwhelming need is to deal with crack cocaine. I do not think that we can separate heroin from crack cocaine, or that there is any necessity to do so. The overwhelming need is to close down crack dens. The police need to have that power, and that is why we are giving it to them. If Opposition Members think that there are inadequate powers in relation to other drugs, I point out that section 8(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act makes it illegal knowingly to allow cannabis use on premises. So it is difficult to see where section 8(b) would not be available, and where new powers would be necessary to effect enforcement action against premises where someone was allowing cannabis use.

Section 8(b) was framed in a different time, when opium smoking was considered a significant issue. That is now less of an issue than it was when opium was smoked more often. I believe that we have adequate powers against the misuse of class B and class C drugs. We should, at this stage, confine the powers to class A drugs, to give the police the powers that they require, where a real and proven nuisance exists.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I note the Minister's reference to section 8(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. However, we are not simply talking about the use of premises for smoking cannabis. We are talking about the use of premises for smoking cannabis, and the association of those premises with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public. It is the two together that give police the power, if they think it is appropriate, to close the premises down. If there is no disorder or serious nuisance, the rest of the clause cannot be enacted. If the police find that premises are being used for smoking drugs, and there is serious disorder, but they are not certain that the drugs are class A, they are unable to take action. They should be able to close down the premises that are producing disorder, even if the drugs being used there are class B or class C.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I repeat that I believe that the main nuisance is caused by those premises where class A drugs are being used. That is where the focus needs to be, in terms of both antisocial behaviour and drugs misuse. Those are the drugs that are causing massively serious problems in our communities. That is where our effort should be directed, to protect people from the antisocial behaviour that is clearly associated with crack houses, and to deal with it through drugs legislation. Unless I can be persuaded about the level of nuisance that Opposition Members suggest exists, I will resist the amendment.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I wonder whether the Minister is having the same problem as I am in finding what is being said now about antisocial behaviour and drugs incompatible with what is suggested in amendment No. 7, which would insert the word ''or''. Does the Minister share my concern about that gross incompatibility?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I pointed that out to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, when I said that other amendments would decouple the nuisance from the drug use, and the drug use from the nuisance. That would considerably widen the powers that we are debating.

Those powers are stern and draconian, and they are necessary and justified in the circumstances. The problem is real. I have seen it in my constituency, and other hon. Members have seen it in theirs. Crack houses are opening, serious criminals are arming themselves and barricading themselves in so that they can produce crack cocaine, continue to profit from it and get themselves intoxicated on it. The power is entirely justified in those circumstances. However, if we were to evaluate the nuisance, I am not sure that it would justify such power in connection with other substances.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We have had a useful debate, and one of the many useful contributions was made by the hon. Member for Gedling from the Government Back Benches. He was kind enough apologise for having to leave early because of another commitment, but I know that he will read Hansard to discover the response to what he and others said.

It is important that Government Back Benchers support what I and my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for Rayleigh say, because it must surely give the Minister second thoughts. As all hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Gedling, have experienced antisocial behaviour in their constituencies in premises where class B and class C drugs are being used, it seems to us that those powers would be useful also to deal with that. We do not suggest that they should be used on every occasion, but that they would represent an extra weapon in the police's armoury.

One of the few contributions to the debate that I thought was particularly unwise was that of the hon. Member for Ludlow, speaking for the Liberal Democrats. He said that his initial reaction was that we could return to the issue in a few years' time if it proves necessary to extend the powers to class B and

class C drugs. However, there may not be another opportunity.

The Bill provides a vehicle for us to give the police discretionary powers. They do not have to be used on every occasion. We should take this opportunity and, if it turns out that the powers are needed, as many on both sides of the Committee believe they will be, the police will have that weapon to hand. The powers will be included in legislation; the police will not have to use them, but they can choose to do so.

That would be a far more sensible way of proceeding than doing as the Liberal Democrats suggest. However, there seems to be a big difference of view between them. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said that she had her own views but would not tell us what they were, and she clearly does not agree with some of her hon. Friends, or with some of the things said at her party's conference. No doubt we can explore those divisions further as the Committee proceeds.

The Liberal Democrats' position is that although the powers might be needed, we should not give the police such a discretion now, but wait for another opportunity in a few years' time. However, we three Conservative Members believe, as does the hon. Member for Gedling, that it would be far more sensible for the powers to be added to the Bill. That will not undermine what the Minister wants. As he goes around the country, police forces and others involved in the drugs field tell him that crack cocaine produces extra problems. I am sure that that is so. We have all experienced it, particularly those of us who have had responsibility for drugs issues, but that does not mean that we should not provide the powers so that they are in the police's armoury to be used when necessary. I have experienced huge amounts of antisocial behaviour in different parts of the country arising from the dealing of drugs other than class A.

I shall give the Minister just one example of a problem that occurs in our tourist resorts. I have discussed this with some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). If one bed and breakfast in a street of bed and breakfasts goes bankrupt, it might become a DSS hostel, as it is described in the trade, or it might be taken over by drug dealers, or perhaps both. That immediately affects the trade of the legitimate establishments in the rest of the road. The bad drives out the good. The Minister will probably realise as he goes around the country that this is the case in just about every tourist resort. I hope that he will keep the matter in mind. I know that he takes these issues seriously. I am sure that he has listened to the hon. Member for Gedling as well as to others who have spoken in this important debate. I hope that the Government decide in the end that it would be useful for the powers to be available. They need not be used very often.

Finally, I should like to correct a particularly unwise statement made, sadly, by the hon. Member for Ludlow. He said that people who are taking only cannabis are simply quiescent and soporific. If he looks at the medical evidence that has been highlighted in recent weeks, he will see that the propensity to suffer

from schizophrenia is hugely increased by cannabis, particularly if large quantities of stronger types of cannabis are used over a lengthy period. We have all had experience in our constituency surgeries of people who become violent and aggressive because they suffer from schizophrenia. That is one of the reasons why I take a strong view, which differs from the Government's view, about the powers that we need in relation to cannabis. I see no good reason why, when we are trying to control antisocial behaviour, we should not take the opportunity to extend this to class B or class C drugs. We shall therefore press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 11.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in

clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 1, in

clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment No. 19, in

clause 2, page 3, line 3, at end insert 'or'.

Amendment No. 2, in

clause 2, page 3, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment No. 20, in

clause 2, page 3, line 5, at end insert 'or'.

Amendment No. 3, in

clause 2, page 3, line 6, leave out paragraph (c).

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We now come to the decoupling that the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire mentioned in the previous debate. The amendment is one of our probing amendments. Once again, we seek to explore whether there would be some benefit in giving the police the widest possible powers where one condition or the other is met, but not necessarily both. I recognise that the basis of the last debate was that the rest of the Bill would remain unamended. With the large Government majority on the Committee, that is inevitable. The previous debate was not a false debate, but while we consider this part of the clause we should at least explore the possibility that the police might find it useful if they did not need to establish that both things were happening in order for the powers to come into effect. We shall hear what the Minister has to say.

Once again, I have had discussions with those involved in law and order issues, not only the police

but people in local authorities involved in crime and disorder partnerships and neighbourhood watch organisations, who often suffer the consequences of antisocial behaviour. They represent law-abiding householders, and when I showed them the Government's proposals, many of them felt that it would be better for the police to have the powers when either

''the premises have been used in connection with the unlawful use or supply of a . . . controlled drug''

or

''the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance''.

Many people, particularly those involved in neighbourhood watch, said that if the use of the premises is associated with

''the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance''—

we are talking about only serious nuisance—that alone should be a good reason for the police to intervene. That is an additional point to the question of classes of drugs, and the amendment states that it would be sensible to consider giving the police the power, rather than restricting them by saying that both A and B must happen.

This is another instance in which my experience of what happens at the sharp end—in the criminal courts—may be useful. Lawyers representing defendants could say that the police should not have intervened because they could not establish that both A and B had taken place. I see the Minister acknowledging the way that such arguments are put in court, and I would not want to see those who are responsible for serious nuisance getting away with it because it could be argued later in court that the police did not have enough evidence that both A and B happened. The Minister and his officials should perhaps ask the criminal court prosecutors in the Crown Prosecution Service whether the Government would be leaving a loophole through which some people could slip if they did not agree to the amendment.

It would be wonderful if the Minister agreed with the amendment today, but even if he does not, I hope that he will take the opportunity to speak, not necessarily to the area Crown prosecuting solicitors who are responsible for huge administrative bureaucracies, but to the people at the sharp end, perhaps in Coventry, who go into court day in, day out. He should ask them whether, if the provision is left as ''and'', the Government will leave a loophole, and whether it would be easier to change it to ''or'', so the police can establish A or B and get them, if I may use that colloquialism. I hope that the Minister will take the amendment seriously.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I shall be brief. I am concerned by the degree of muddled thinking at such an early stage in the Bill. Just a few minutes ago, we were assured that the amendment would be okay as long as both the drugs and disorder qualifications were triggered. I am deeply concerned that two minutes later there is a complete change of tack.

I have a real concern about the amendment. As I understand it, it would mean that if premises were associated with

''disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public''

and general antisocial behaviour, they could be boarded up and closed. I want such behaviour tackled but other measures, acceptable behaviour contracts, for example, could be used depending on the nature of the premises. I cannot see that the right solution, come what may, is simply to board up a premises because antisocial behaviour is taking place there.

If we look at the other side of the coin, I see that the Conservatives are concerned about the production and dealing of class A drugs. We are all concerned about that, and I seek the Minister's assurance that that could be picked up by other legislation. That is crucial. We all agree that we want to crack down on that but, for the purposes of this Bill, it is essential to keep the word ''and''.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

We are introducing the new powers to tackle the problem of properties where class A drug supply occurs and causes serious nuisance and distress to neighbours in the community. We want to give the police a power that is quick and easy to use but we must ensure that it complies with human rights, so that it can be used with confidence and does not have unwanted or undesirable consequences. We seek to introduce a tough, hard, easy-to-use but clearly focused measure.

The new powers are extensive. They allow the police to close and to seal premises. In many cases, that will mean the displacement of occupants. They are designed to enable properties to be closed where demonstrable harm is being done to the local community. Their impact has been carefully considered. By connecting serious nuisance with drug offences, we are targeting the powers to be used to tackle the most damaging forms of drug dealing, such as crack houses, that lead to immediate disruption of the community.

I understand that many hon. Members share the Government's wish to make the powers as easy as possible for the police to use and to make them apply to any buildings used for drugs but it is important to consider whether such use causes a nuisance. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) raised the same issue as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has raised. However, the amendment would exclude the nuisance requirement and have severe, unintended and undesirable consequences. It is undesirable to allow closure simply on the basis of use rather than use that causes serious nuisance. Some drug users do not pose a threat to their neighbours and the immediate community. If we are to tackle the scourge of class A drugs, we will have to rehabilitate drug addicts more effectively when they come out of prison or treatment centres. Part of that rehabilitation must be an extensive programme of what we call after-care—attempts to get them into work and accommodation.

The unintended consequence of decoupling that I fear most would be that landlords, whether in the private sector or public sector, would be reluctant to give accommodation to people with a history of drug misuse. Such a decoupling could be a serious barrier. A draconian power against the landlord who chooses to give the person accommodation, rather than against the individual who uses class A drugs, could detract from our efforts in other areas.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Further to that point, does the Minister agree that people in such situations often go into shared houses with other tenants? If ''and'' is replaced by ''or'', a house with, say, four tenants could be closed down because one of them takes a class A drug. We hope that no superintendent would invoke the power in such circumstances but the power would exist.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

That is right. If the powers were misused, we could create even more nuisance and could prevent vulnerable people who are attempting to get over their addiction from getting treatment. We should do nothing that has an adverse and unintentional impact on our ability to develop treatment and to deal with people who cause our society huge problems. We need to do much more with regard to treatment, and do it more effectively. We should not put people off getting treatment.

The power ensures that action will be taken only when the behaviour of the drug dealer or the user is problematic to the wider community. Where behaviour harms the community, the power ensures that it can be dealt with quickly and with suitable severity. The powers in the Misuse of Drugs Act will still apply. They should be used to prosecute dealers operating from premises where no immediate visible nuisance is apparent. It is extremely unlikely that open dealing from houses would not meet the nuisance criteria. The deletion of the nuisance criteria would not add substantially to the potential powers available to act against dealers in such settings.

I was concerned, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South raised the issue, lest we were doing what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said and making it difficult for practitioners to go to court and to use the powers. I wanted to satisfy myself that there would not be insurmountable barriers to their use. With regard to closure in connection with the use of class A drugs, a police officer will have to have ''reasonable grounds for believing''. That is not too high a requirement before proceeding. The court that hears the case within 48 hours will have to satisfy itself, on the balance of probabilities, that class A drugs are being used, produced or dealt on the premises. We are not putting the barrier too high. Witnesses will have to be prepared to swear and it will have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the premises are being used for class A drugs before action can be taken.

There will be a need for guidance to point the court to the kinds of nuisance considered to be indicative of a need for closure measures. We know what they are—comings and goings 24 hours a day, soliciting in the area, paraphernalia and noise. On the nuisance side alone, without considering class A drug use, powers

such as antisocial behaviour orders and antisocial behaviour contracts already exist. We shall come to other powers in the Bill, such as demoted tenancies and the extension of fixed penalty notices to deal with noise in circumstances in which local authorities have not been able to provide a 24-hour service. We are trying to deal with the nuisance problems that are not associated with class A drugs differently but effectively, and I do not believe that decoupling is appropriate. However, I know that there is concern that we should not set the barriers too high for people to be able to access the powers. I do not believe that we have done that. When the guidance is right, with the level of proof that is specified, it will be an effective and easily usable measure, albeit clearly focused on that kind of nuisance.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Does the Minister agree that if the word ''or'' were included, the police would be brought in to deal with matters such as noise, which they do not currently have to handle? Under the amendment, a policeman would have to take the decision to close a house down because very loud music was being played every night. At the moment that is, rightly, a council matter.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

That is the case. Under the amendment, if serious nuisance were caused by a neighbour playing music loudly in the middle of the night, not only could local authorities act—the Bill will make the powers easier to use and more widely available to local authorities—but the police would be able to enter the premises and seal them. That is not appropriate or necessary.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to the Minister for his serious response. I am also glad that he has looked into the issue and paid tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, who raised the matter on Second Reading and who tabled some amendments. The Minister has taken advice about the fact that the barriers should not be set too high. That shows that we were right to have this debate, which has been useful, and to explore the matter.

I said that these were probing amendments. As is often the case, it has been a useful probe, because it has got a number of things on the record. However, I am still concerned that there may be cases in which the measure goes wrong. I am particularly concerned that potential witnesses as to the amount of nuisance may be intimidated by drugs suppliers and users. Like me and many other hon. Members, the Minister must have come across situations in which the people involved in the drugs trade are very dangerous and intimidating and law-abiding people are intimidated into failing to give evidence, even when the police want the law-abiding community to come together. One can understand that. People who are involved in the drugs trade and who carry weapons are very frightening and intimidating.

Therefore, it is important to keep these matters under review. In light of the serious way in which the Minister responded, I am sure that he will do so. The Government may be persuaded to think again as there is further consultation and the Bill proceeds to another place. Noble Lords who have great experience in this field may have other comments. The Minister clearly

takes seriously the issues that we have raised and will continue to do so. In light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in

clause 1, page 1, line 14, after 'that', insert

'reasonable steps have been taken to notify'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 9, in

clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out 'has been consulted'.

Amendment No. 30, in

clause 5, page 4, line 30, leave out 'consulted' and insert 'notified'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall be reasonably brief. Again, this is a probing set of amendments. We are talking about the difference between ''consult'' and ''notify''. To forestall any trivial points that the Liberal Democrats might be minded to make, and before they say that this group is going in the opposite direction from what we said under the first group of amendments, let me say that it is entirely appropriate for us to probe exactly what the Government intend, and the amendments are an appropriate way to do so.

I am well aware that if we adopted Liberal Democrat policy, we would consult to death in every local authority and nothing would ever get done—people would always be consulting. As I said, no doubt that led to many of the Liberal Democrat defeats in my area last Thursday night and Friday morning. We wanted to explore with the Minister whether, once a firm decision had been taken, it should simply be a matter of notifying the local authority of that decision. If the Minister was right in saying that the local authority should not be able to initiate the proceedings, perhaps in knocking down our suggestion under the first group of amendments, he should logically have said that it would simply be a matter of notification. Having expected the Government to use their majority to reject our first group of amendments, we say that, if they are pursuing that line, it should logically be a matter of notification. We shall listen with interest to the Minister's response.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath admits the inconsistency in the arguments that we have heard. I should like to defend full consultation. The approach to the issue through crime and disorder partnerships is very much one of partnership, but the word ''notification'' goes against the spirit of that. We must have full consultation, with good partnership working. I do not want that watered down in any way whatever.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I am clearly doing something wrong. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred earlier to the number of hours that I had spent in Committee, but you will know, Mr. O'Brien, because you, too, spent many of those hours in Committee, that most of them were taken up by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. It is more usual for the barbs and venom to be thrown in my direction, but today they were all tossed down the

Gangway at the Liberal Democrats, so I shall have to re-examine my position. Perhaps the hon. Member for Surrey Heath and I are getting close to each other, having spent so much time together.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

May I ask the Minister to recollect one thing from our many hours in Committee? Whenever the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has been involved in a Committee, he has taken up much more time than the two of us put together.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I do not know who the hon. Gentleman will persuade to agree with him, if he suggests that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. The Minister is being naughty. We must stick to the agenda.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I cannot understand the hon. Member for Surrey Heath saying that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is over-worthy—or rather, over-wordy.

The aim of the amendments is to allow the police to use the powers without consulting the local authority. There are many problems with changing the power in that way. It is particularly important that local authorities are aware of police action to close premises in their area. In the case of a residential property, when the tenants or occupiers are made aware of the impending closure, local authority services should be alerted and available to advise people and to deal with the consequences. Those powers will often need to be used quickly, and the relevant services must be able to respond equally quickly to the needs of those seeking advice from the local authority. Consultation with the local authority will give as much warning as possible of the services that it will need to provide.

Consultation in the act of making a closure notice and the subsequent order is also important. In compiling a case against the premises it will be necessary to prove serious nuisance, and the relevant information may be held by local authority officers. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned instances in which it is difficult to encourage witnesses to come forward. In order to obtain an order, we will often be dependent on the statements of professional witnesses, who are local authority employees. The police will need that support in compiling the evidence to submit to the court.

We should not water down the provision. The police should stay in the lead, but there should be consultation with the other agencies that will pick up the pieces afterwards and help to put the case together.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

One of the agencies that would need to be consulted is social services, because there may be young children involved in a house that is about to be shut down. It would be inappropriate for the police to close a house down and to give only an hour's notice to the council that they had sealed off a house in which there were young children, particularly if those young children were vulnerable.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Those of us who represent areas where such nuisances exist know that we often deal with vulnerable people whose homes have been taken over. Sometimes they are women living alone and sometimes there are children in the property. It is unthinkable that such action could be taken without full consultation with the local authority, so that it can pick up the pieces. I am in favour of taking tough action against people who allow their premises to be used for class A drugs, but we must be aware of some of the human consequences of the use of the powers.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The debate has been short, but useful in exploring the background to the issues. The Minister has responded as I anticipated. Having aired the issue, I do not seek to press it further, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 10, in

clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out paragraph (f).

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 15, in

clause 1, page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (11).

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The amendments are, once again, probing in nature. We wanted to explore the extent of the information set out in paragraph (f). The issue is linked to our earlier discussions about consultation.

Many law-abiding people feel that too much time is spent looking after the interests of offenders and not enough looking after the law-abiding. Faced with the proposal, some of my constituents would ask why there should be a requirement in law for the prosecution—the police—to provide lots of information about ''relevant advice providers'' to offenders. If, for example, the police wanted to use the new powers, why should they have to pause to pick up a pile of leaflets and then be criticised because they had not provided leaflets from enough organisations? Some of my constituents would say, ''What on earth is this doing in legislation? It is pathetic claptrap.''

The Minister's intentions are genuine and I do not castigate him personally for the proposal, but the debate has been worthwhile in putting on the record exactly what the Government have in mind and how long the police have to wait to decide who the ''relevant advice providers'' are. I imagine that the Minister will repeat what he has just said about vulnerable families and the need to involve other agencies, which we all understand. But however prosperous the areas that they represent, all hon. Members' constituencies have pockets of deprivation. As I have said before, in some parts of Camberley, the main town in my constituency, there are houses that have been used for drug dealing.

Even if the full weight of the law is imposed on people, it is important that they should have the opportunity to get advice. However, given that there are legal advice centres, citizens advice bureaux and other organisations, many of which are funded by taxpayers' money, it worries me that the new powers should impose a specific condition on those who are

about to close down a house that they must provide information. People who want advice have plenty of opportunity to get it, and it should not be a condition precedent that stops action from being taken unless information about relevant advice has been provided first.

I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously and, in the spirit in which I make these points, tell us exactly what he has in mind.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

That is beginning to stretch credulity about what the Conservatives propose. Let us consider a case in which someone is arrested and the police let that person contact a solicitor or call the duty solicitor—the police are making legal advice available to the person. The Conservatives are suggesting that in a case where a house is being boarded up, the police should not be required to give any information to the person concerned about the legal remedies that might be available to them. That would be taking a step that has not existed in British law for as long as I can remember, and probably not for several centuries. It is an extremely draconian proposal.

The only other advice that is being requested is about housing. We are talking about making people homeless, which is the effect of the proposal. In the case of some of the people involved, that is good, but there may be other people in those properties who do not deserve to be made homeless, although the premises have to be closed down to prevent a nuisance being caused. It is difficult to decide to which individuals to give advice about housing matters. The requirement to give advice about housing matters is entirely sensible because there will be people in some of the properties who have not caused the nuisance but who are the main victims of it. The Conservatives' intention is that people can turn up, slap a notice on the door, board up the property and throw everyone out without having to tell them how to seek legal advice or say how they might seek alternative housing. That applies particularly to people who are the victims of the nuisance and not the perpetrators of it.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

My police force, Cleveland, also finds paragraph (f) problematic. I support it. The clause puts a tremendous strain on police officers, whose job is to enforce the law. They cannot always give the appropriate advice. Housing agencies, solicitors and other advice agencies could be infinitely more valuable in that respect. We are not talking about victims or innocent people. We are talking about reasoned advice that can be effectively used if and when necessary.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Bill says

''give information about relevant advice providers.''

It does not say that the police are to give the advice; they are to give information about how to contact people who will give the advice. If the Bill said that the police had to explain to people what they could and could not do, I would have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Lady. However, it is concerned merely with how people may obtain legal and housing help. Clause 1(11) says:

''information about . . . organisations . . . that provide advice about housing and legal matters''.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I hear the hon. Gentleman. I agree that that is what the Bill says. However, my police force interprets that as giving it an onerous responsibility, and it asks the Minister to be minded of that. It believes that the victims are usually those who live next door: innocent people do not live in the houses that we are considering. Consequently, a range of people would be prepared to give them advice. The integrity of what my police force asks is intact.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath pre-empted my reply with what he said in relation to the previous set of amendments. It is essential, in considering the power, to reflect that its effect, when used on residential properties, is to remove not only those who have been involved in the dealing, use, manufacture and production of class A drugs but others, including children. Our proposals do not impose anything draconian on the police or give them anything difficult to do.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South that the real victims are the communities that put up with this kind of nuisance, which goes on and on. I recognise the syndrome that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath talks about.

Hon. Members ask why the police should have to do certain things. We are not asking them to become experts in giving advice; there is no requirement on them to do so. The clause says that the notice attached to the building, giving people information about what is being done to them, why and its consequences should also give information about the relevant advice providers.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath says that there are other Government-funded organisations, such as citizens advice bureaux, to give people advice. That is precisely what the notice will tell them. It will give information about where they can get legal advice and housing assistance as a result of being evicted from their homes. We are not doing anything that detracts from our main desire, which is to protect communities. In the process, we must surely direct people to where they will be given assistance, having used the measures against them and, in effect, excluded them from their homes. The effect will be the same whether they or people who cohabit with them are guilty. There is a need to take action, but I do not think that we shall fall into the trap that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath talked about.

As I was about to reply to the debate, the thought came to me that the police will not give the advice themselves but simply tell people where to go, and plenty of police officers would be more than happy to do that. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

It was useful to have that on the record. Like the Minister, I have met many police officers who would react to the clause in the way that he suggested. We sometimes react similarly to legislative drafting.

We recognise that it is only right and appropriate for the full weight of advice to be available to people in

a premises who are entirely innocent. I probed the matter, however, because there is sometimes the feeling, as I said, that the law has tilted too much in favour of the lawbreakers, while not doing enough for the law-abiding people. That is particularly relevant in one part of my constituency, which has suffered an absolutely massive gypsy incursion. Law-abiding residents have strongly suggested that all the Government agencies are on the side of those who break the law by dumping tonnes of hard core on a field or taking over land in breach of all the laws about protecting flood plains. That is just an example, and the same problem can arise in relation to other areas of the law.

Now that the Minister has put his thoughts on record, we recognise that the Government do not seek to use the Bill to force the police to give advice and that they will perhaps simply hand over a couple of leaflets. I am reassured and content that important operations will not be delayed while the police rush around trying to find out who every relevant advice provider is before taking action. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in

clause 1, page 2, line 27, leave out subsection (8).

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 14, in

clause 1, page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (9).

Amendment No. 129, in

clause 1, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

'(12) This section does not apply to premises operated by agencies working to aid and rehabilitate drug users and the homeless.'.

Amendment No. 130, in

clause 2, page 3, line 7, at end insert—

'(d) alternative accommodation is available to any resident of the premises who is not involved in the activities described in paragraphs (a) and (b).'.

Amendment No. 24, in

clause 2, page 3, line 25, leave out subsection (9).

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We have quite an interesting group of amendments before us. As well as Conservative amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 24, it includes Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 129 and 130. Liberal Democrat Members will obviously speak to their amendments in due course, but I rather think that they have in mind the controversy stirred up by a clinic in Cambridge. An individual was sent to prison—

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Two people.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend's constituency is obviously close to Cambridge. Those two people were supposedly involved in helping drug addicts but they found themselves on the wrong side of the law as regards the supply of drugs. If I am right that that is one of the things that the Liberal Democrats have in mind, I may seek to deal later with what they say, because I will have some points to make in response.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 probe the issue of why we need subsections (8) and (9) and clause 2(9). I am rather puzzled by the fact that the Government need to include a subsection that states:

''It is immaterial whether any person has been convicted of an offence relating to the use or supply of a controlled drug.''

The Minister may say that that has been included to avoid doubt, so that no one in the courts has any misgivings. Normally, however, something that is immaterial should not be in the law at all. Clearly, if it is not mentioned, it is immaterial. It is not something that I have been used to seeing in other Acts of Parliament. I do not know whether it marks a new trend in legislative drafting—that something is specified as immaterial. Vast numbers of things could be immaterial in any legislation, but one does not have to set them all out.

We on the Conservative Benches are in favour of less legislation, not more. We do not wish to see the number of Acts of Parliament that the Government repeatedly bring in. We know that the Government have had a problem in that everything that the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), brought in during his disastrous term of office has now, more or less, been repealed and rejected as disastrous by the present Home Secretary. Much of the Government's recent criminal justice Bills have been tearing down, as we call it, the house that Jack built. There has been a rejection of all the mistakes of the previous Home Secretary because the present Home Secretary did not agree with the trend of legislation that the right hon. Member for Blackburn introduced. That has hugely increased the amount of Home Office legislation, and has meant many happy hours in Committee for the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and me.

When we have an opportunity to make any Act of Parliament shorter, and concentrate on what is really relevant, we should take it. I am in favour of an automatic repeal of any legislation that has not been used for a certain amount of time. If I were ever lucky enough to secure a high place in the private Members' ballot in the House, my private Member's Bill would be the automatic repeal of legislation Bill, which would say that, for every one new page of statute law, one would have to find at least one existing page to repeal.

That would concentrate the minds of Ministers and draftsmen wonderfully, because it would mean that we did not have a constant increase in the amount of legislation. Some people would go further and say that, for every page of new law, we should find 10 to repeal. That would represent real deregulation.

I return to this set of amendments. We ought at least to query whether it is necessary to have a specific provision saying that one particular thing is immaterial. That struck us as rather puzzling. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say to justify it. It is not something about which we have a massive problem but it struck us as puzzling that one thing has to be specified as immaterial, when many other things may be immaterial. It is not the sort of thing we normally see in legislation.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I, too, have some concerns about the inclusion of subsection (8) because I am not quite sure why it is there. I have some sympathy with the views expressed but I will wait for the Minister's response. Is it in order for me to speak to amendments Nos. 129 and 130 at this point?

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Yes.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. I would rather concentrate on those for the moment. Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 are very important to us, and we will be seeking a vote on them, for the reasons that have already been outlined. Part of the equation is rehabilitation. There are some wonderful initiatives in the community, many of them receiving Home Office support—financial and otherwise—which we fear could be affected by some aspects of the Bill as it stands.

We want to see our amendments in the Bill. The first one is concerned with ensuring that the clause does not apply to premises operated by agencies that are working to aid and to rehabilitate drug users and the homeless. We have concerns about the Secretary of State's having the power to set out regulations. Notwithstanding that, we feel that the amendment should be in the Bill. It must be seen as a whole

package. When we have all those excellent initiatives, they must be recognised as such and they must not risk running foul of the law.

Lambeth has been successful in closing down crack houses. Its authorities are involved in lots of activities, which, in the process of rehabilitation, involve having people who are taking drugs in houses. The amendment is meant to be constructive. We feel very strongly about it. It is interesting that the Minister has pre-empted us and mentioned those issues already.

I turn to amendment No. 130, which the Minister has touched on. It seeks to deal with the innocent person who, for some reason or another, is intimidated into allowing activities to take place in their house. It may be a single parent; all sorts of vulnerable people may be used. We want to be assured that there will be provision for rehousing and alternative accommodation. We will be asking for a vote on the two amendments, and we will interested to hear the Minister's comments on amendment No. 13.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.

Standing Committee G

Clause 1 - Closure notice

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment No. 14, in

clause 1, page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (9).

Amendment No. 129, in

clause 1, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

'(12) This section does not apply to premises operated by agencies working to aid and rehabilitate drug users and the homeless.'.

Amendment No. 130, in

clause 2, page 3, line 7, at end insert—

'(d) alternative accommodation is available to any resident of the premises who is not involved in the activities described in paragraphs (a) and (b).'.

Amendment No. 24, in

clause 2, page 3, line 25, leave out subsection (9).

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cran. I do not think that I have met you before, so it is a double pleasure.

I have already made the case and I do not want to repeat it.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Hear, hear.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I think that that comment is a little unjust, as I do not use quite as many words as some members of this Committee.

In summary, amendment No. 129 has been included to allay the concerns of people who work with charities that help drug addicts and homeless people. Such organisations argue convincingly that, unless the amendments are accepted, the manager or owner of premises used for homeless people or drug rehabilitation could be more severely punished for allowing drugs to be used on the premises than the person using the drugs. As I said earlier, we must take an holistic approach, and it is important to ensure that people working in the agencies and on the various initiatives are on board.

Amendment No. 130 would ensure that innocent and vulnerable people who may lose their homes because they have become caught up in the situation but are not guilty per se have some protection and are not left homeless on the streets.

We feel strongly about amendments Nos. 129 and 130. They are not just probing amendments.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I also welcome your presence in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Cran. I did not intend to speak to this group of amendments, because my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) put the case admirably for those that we tabled. However, I want to pick up on the amendment to which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) has just spoken, particularly because of the point made by my hon. Friend in his opening comments this morning. He referred to the problems in Cambridge, where two managers were imprisoned for allowing drug dealing on the premises. One of those managers was a constituent of mine, so I was closely involved and have some insight into the issues.

In amendment No. 129, the Liberal Democrats propose that the clause should

''not apply to premises operated by agencies working to aid and rehabilitate drug users and the homeless.''

The work of such agencies is to be welcomed and supported, and the charity concerned, Winter Comfort in Cambridge, does admirable work. I do not want to go over the events leading up to the court cases, for obvious reasons, but I come to the issue with that experience and I do not support the amendment, but not for any partisan reason.

That case caused a huge furore throughout the voluntary organisations that help people who are using drugs, but it is essential for the law to have the power to deal with a situation if it gets completely out of hand. I am not saying that that was so in the case to which I referred, and I do not want to comment on it in detail, but I know that it caused a lot of heart-searching throughout the voluntary sector that deals with those vulnerable people. In many ways, one's sympathy is with them and the need to provide the managers of such facilities with as much support as possible. I genuinely believe that. However, at the end of the day we must accept that, in some circumstances, those facilities can become a focus for local disorder, disruption and antisocial behaviour that affects people in the neighbourhood. It would therefore be wrong to exempt such facilities totally.

It is important that the police, social services and all the other public bodies that work closely with those running such premises—which may be an agency or a hostel—are sensitive to the local situation and the problems of these often vulnerable people. However, it would be wrong—I say this with huge respect for the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and her presentation of the amendment—to provide the blanket exemption from this aspect of the Bill that she advocates. I hope that anyone would treat such a situation sensitively. If there were evidence that a location was providing a focus for disorder, causing antisocial behaviour in the locality or distress to others who live or work in the vicinity of the premises, action would need to be taken. The Cambridge case shows that people can take action. As I said, it would be wrong to provide a blanket exemption.

Obviously, I do not know what the Minister will say, but I should prefer a ministerial exhortation that, in such a situation, the premises would be treated with great sensitivity, and that one would not seek to end such provision other than in extremis. However, to suggest that such premises should never be closed, which would be the consequence of the Liberal Democrat amendment, would be wrong. Again, I say that with the experience of having had to deal with a difficult situation that was not located in my constituency, but adjacent to it. One of the two people imprisoned as a result was a constituent of mine. Although that might lead me to have sympathy for the amendment—there is sympathy for the cause—it would not be right to go as far as it proposes.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Cran. We are, in effect, dealing with two sets of amendments that are designed to do different things. I think that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath anticipated what I was going to say. Amendments Nos. 13 and 24 reduce the clarity of the power. In tackling drug dealing, there is always the problem of obtaining enough evidence to prosecute individuals for their part in selling drugs. That is particularly difficult when the selling goes on behind closed doors. The proposed powers will ensure that, when nuisance to the community is evident, even if no prosecution can be brought against an individual, action can be taken to control the behaviour occurring within the property and to ensure that the dealing stops.

The use of the power to close premises may or may not be connected to criminal proceedings. That is an operational matter for the police. It is best left to them to decide the most appropriate course of action. By stating that there need be no connection between criminal and civil action, we seek to remove a potential hindrance to the use of the powers and give clarity to the court that it can use the powers even without criminal charges against the individual involved in supply. That clarity is important, as we are talking about the same offences: the production, use or sale of class A drugs, which are criminal offences.

We should not pass legislation that could leave people without the necessary clarity—it could give the impression that action should be taken only in cases of criminal activity. It is for the police to decide when the powers should be used in conjunction with a criminal prosecution, and if they believe that that is not possible, they should get on and use the powers that we are giving them in order to prevent the nuisance that is inflicted on the community.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I have been listening very carefully to what the Minister has been saying to justify the use of the word ''immaterial''. I understand his argument, but will he just answer me this? If the provisions challenged by our amendments did not appear at all, would not the legislation have exactly the same effect? If something is immaterial, and it is not in the legislation at all, surely that silence would be regarded as meaning that the police had the

powers that they needed to close down crack houses, whether or not anybody had been involved in the criminal courts.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I believe so. Unlike me, the hon. Gentleman has a legal qualification, so he is probably best able to judge. However, for the price of a bit of ink and a bit more paper, we are putting things beyond doubt. The issue is very serious, as he quite rightly recognises, so it is worth clarifying for the courts that the powers do not need to be used in conjunction with a criminal prosecution. Of course, if it is appropriate that is exactly what the police ought to do. They ought to keep at the forefront of their minds the prosecution of people who involve themselves in the drugs trade and other such behaviour. The hon. Gentleman anticipated that the wording was for the sake of clarity, but was worried that it might be for something else. I am simply trying to confirm that there is no ulterior motive in the wording. The wording makes it absolutely clear what the issue is.

Amendment No. 129 serves to create a blanket exemption for premises operated by agencies working to aid and rehabilitate drug users and the homeless. I understand the intention of the amendment, and the Government place considerable value on the work that so many people do in the rehabilitation and homelessness fields to assist drug abusers and drug addicts. We intend closure notices and orders to be used against premises such as crack houses, as I have said in response to previous debates in Committee. Such places cause the most serious nuisance and distress to the community. The powers are not designed to be used against premises or agencies working with drug users and assisting in combating drug problems in this country.

I do not deny that the problem is potentially serious for the reasons raised by the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. We must try to do two things. If we are to tackle the drugs problem to the necessary degree, we have to ensure that treatment and harm minimisation are developed and are properly tailored and aimed at the people who have the problems. Such people are often homeless, beggars on the street, or other people who have serious problems, sometimes as a result of their drug misuse and sometimes in conjunction with it.

We want to encourage people into the field and to expand it, but at the same time we must make absolutely certain that people are not abusing the situation and that their abuse is covered by the law, if and when it occurs. Having a blanket exemption, as the amendment suggests, would be a retrograde step and we could not support it. Such an exemption would leave the law open to exploitation by unscrupulous people who claim to provide services of the type in question, or by individuals working in such agencies who choose to act outside of the law—the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will know that there are many different views on drugs law stretching from every extreme and relating to every dimension. The law needs to be able to cover such circumstances where appropriate.

We have already considered the issue and believe that the Secretary of State's ability to grant exemptions to premises or types of premises, which amendment No. 14 would remove, provides the appropriate protection for workers and premises in this field. If we found that those powers were being used inappropriately we could take the necessary action to clarify when and how they should be used. I understand Parliament's concerns about delegated powers, but I would far rather leave us with the ability to act if these powers are used in a way that we have not envisaged than put a blanket ban on their use in particular areas, as proposed by Liberal Democrat Members, which could be quite dangerous.

We believe that the ability to exempt certain premises from the power in the clause is a necessary reserve power. There is a need to ensure balance in relation to powers to close any setting where class A drugs may be sold or used. An unwanted consequence would be if facilities for drug users were not provided through fear of the legal consequences. The power to make exemptions allows the Secretary of State flexibility in defining those premises where it is not appropriate for the power to be used. In certain cases, the closure of a premises could lead to greater harm to the community. Those cases can often be dealt with by using other, less harmful means.

Amendment No. 14 would leave no possibility of preventing the use of that power on premises where it would be against the public good. I do not suggest that that will happen because the police are aware of the need to develop treatment and harm minimisation facilities to deal with the homeless. They are alert to the consequences of inappropriately affecting such facilities or deterring their development. However, there is a fear about that and the reserve power should cover it.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister and I are both trying to address these issues seriously. I am grateful for the way that he is responding. These are perhaps matters of degree. The Minister will realise that our main concern was that this was approaching a Henry VIII power and that the Bill would not tell us what the Secretary of State may decide to do by regulation. As he knows, we have frequently objected to the use of such powers. We think that it would be much better if these matters were all in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will understand that while we are not having a pitched battle about this, there are questions of judgment here. It is a judgment call and we come down on the other side.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I understand those concerns and I have heard them from the hon. Gentleman in other circumstances. If I were on the Opposition Bench now I would make exactly the same point. He knows, as I know, the sensitive area that we are involved in here. The case in an area adjacent to the constituency of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was mentioned. Irrespective of what happened in that individual case, it did great damage to the confidence of many people who were doing an appropriate job that we wanted them to do. Drawing the line in the right place is difficult. To set out in the Bill that the

power will be used in certain circumstances and not in others leads to problems. One can give complete comfort by simply exempting the homeless, yet one suffers the consequences if someone abuses that exemption.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I should like to explain my concerns. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and the Minister and I take the point about the blanket ban. There is an area not far away from the constituency that I represent with several drug rehabilitation centres. The situation has reached a point where the local population, especially hotel owners—a mishmash of hotels is mainly used—are saying that they do not want any more centres. That is difficult, as we need them. They are highly unlikely to be free of disorder: there must be some disorder in creating order. The Bill, however, is handing a tool to a neighbourhood to get a charity closed down. It may be right for the neighbourhood for that charity to be closed down, but it may be wrong. Will the Minister look into the possibility of a middle way?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

A third way.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

A third way. There is a danger that, by leaving the Bill as it is, we could provide people with a great weapon with which to terminate much good work.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. I want to make it clear that from now on interventions should be short, crisp and to the point.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

You seem to be much gentler in the Chair than you were in the Whips Office, Mr. Cran. [Laughter.] That is confirmed by the laughter from the Opposition, as they should know better than I do.

I ask the hon. Lady to think about her claim that we are giving a power to people who will object to the facilities. We are not. We are giving the power to a police officer, who will consult a local authority on taking action that a local community is urging him to take. That is different. As I said, if such a pattern of use were attempted and approved by a court—nuisance would have to be caused and the public good would have to be considered—we would have the reserve power to deal with it if we believed that it was absolutely necessary.

With regard to the Henry VIII clause, I say to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that we are giving the power only to reduce what Parliament is approving. The situation is not quite as bad as some of the circumstances that worry him.

Amendment No. 130 is unnecessary. Accepting it would clog up the process of granting closure orders, interfere with the way in which a local authority discharges its homelessness responsibilities, and place those removed from a crack house before other equally deserving cases. They could, for example, be placed ahead of priority cases such as persons aged 16 or 17 who are estranged from the home and not in care, or others returning from an institutionalised background such as members of the armed forces.

A central concern during the creation of these powers has been that provision should be quick and effective against the nuisance that is being caused on

premises but that adequate provision must be made for those who have not been involved in the use or supply of class A drugs. That concern is addressed by the requirement for details of where to obtain legal and housing advice to be contained in the closure notice. Anyone with a connection to the property will therefore know how and where to access advice and services if they need them.

The amendment would mean that action could not be taken unless those services had been provided. I do not think that children or spouses of people involved in drugs, however innocent, should be made a special case because they are associated with a crack house or with other premises associated with class A drugs where nuisance has been caused.

The hon. Lady is welcome to press the matter to the vote if she wants to but cases should be dealt with equally and on merit, and not given priority because of the circumstances in which the eviction arose. Decisions should be based on need, not on the background to the case.

In light of my remarks, I ask hon. Members to reconsider their amendments. I hope that they will not press them to the vote.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I add my welcome to you, Mr. Cran.

This has been a good debate, notwithstanding the fact that it was interrupted by the Adjournment of the sitting in the middle of the day. All of us, including the Minister, recognise that the issues are very difficult, and that there are judgments to be made. I should make it clear that if the Liberal Democrats were to press their amendments Nos. 129 and 130 to the vote, we would vote against them and with the Government. We agree with the Minister.

My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire talked about the Wintercomfort case. I was not sure whether the Minister was making a pun when he talked about giving comfort to the hon. Lady. Perhaps he was not. We believe that it is important to ensure that the police have powers in cases where, for example, an organisation starts out by purporting to offer treatment but tips over the scale into actively supplying drugs. Sadly, that has happened several times, although it was the Wintercomfort trial that caused all the publicity and had a knock-on effect on legitimate drug rehabilitation work elsewhere in the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said. Nevertheless, I have come across other cases that did not have as much publicity but where so-called drug rehabilitation or harm minimisation clinics were actually promoting drugs.

I draw the Committee's attention to the important work being done by Dr. Mary Brett, a senior science teacher at Dr. Challoner's grammar school in Amersham. Some members of the Committee may not have come across it before, although I know that the Minister has. Dr. Brett gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee's significant report into drugs policy a year or so ago. She continues to keep me, my hon. Friends and other hon. Members informed of

organisations that start by purporting to be legitimate drug advice clinics or drug advice charities but tip over into the promotion of drugs. That is important in relation to this part of the Bill.

I shall give the Committee some brief examples, but before I do so, it is important to note that Dr. Brett's concerns about some of the drug charities were endorsed in the Select Committee's report, as the Minister will recall. She has followed these issues for several years, and members of the Select Committee were as horrified by some of her examples as I was when I heard about them, even though the Select Committee is Government-dominated. It is not simply a question of the Opposition raising these concerns: a Labour-dominated Select Committee endorsed what was said.

In paragraphs 201, 202 and 204 of its report, the Select Committee said:

''we believe that all drugs education material should be based on the premise that any drug use can be harmful and should be discouraged.

Our attention was drawn to two leaflets. The first was produced by DrugScope and entitled What and why?: Cannabis . . .

When we asked for further clarification of their philosophy, we were told that DrugScope 'as an organisation prides itself on providing balanced, accurate drug information to professionals and the public'.''

In paragraph 207, the Select Committee concluded in bold type:

''We acknowledge the need to provide realistic drugs education, but we believe that examples such as the Lifeline leaflet'',

which was one of the leaflets that Dr. Brett produced for the Select Committee,

''crossed the line between providing accurate information and encouraging young people to experiment with illegal drugs. We believe that publicly funded organisations involved in educating impressionable young people about drugs should take care not to stray across this line . . . We do not share the view that confronting young people with shocking images of the harm caused by some drug use is counter productive . . . We acknowledge the importance of educating all young people about the harmful effects of all drugs, legal and illegal. Nonetheless, we recommend that the Government conducts rigorous analysis of its drugs education and prevention work and only spends money on what works, focusing in particular on long term and problem drug use and the consequent harm.

Since the Select Committee's report, Dr. Brett has found some more offending leaflets and has written about them to my hon. Friends and me—and perhaps to members of the Committee. They were produced by an organisation called the Drugs Posse, and they are probably even worse than the ones produced by Lifeline and Drugscope, which were criticised by the Select Committee. The Clued Up Posse and an organisation called Connexions sent out one such leaflet, and Dr. Brett asked her sixth formers, who are the target audience, to examine it. They concluded that it was patronising and useless and that it positively encouraged drug use. They also pointed out that the dark green used in the publicity material resembles a Rizla packet, which sends out a message about those organisations. I know that Hansard has a problem with things being held up, but as the Committee can see, the leaflet looks like a Rizla packet with ''cannabis'' written across it.

I know that the Minister takes those issues seriously, but in other Ministries there is a problem with the lack of joined-up government.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I will of course give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.

We are discussing organisations that the Government must take seriously when they examine which organisations are helping drug addicts as opposed to promoting drug use. Dr. Brett has written to the Department of Health pointing out that its official publications seem to run counter to Home Office objectives. The Government have to make sure that their message is unified. Rather than taking up any more of the Committee's time, I shall draw these examples, which have only just come to me, to the Minister's attention.

When we consider the premises used by these organisations, we have to look out for their publicity material. The term ''harm minimisation'' is often used as code for legalisation and gives the wrong message. The organisations' premises may need to be closed down, which is the point that relates to the clause. This is the only part of the Bill in which I can address the publicity material produced by those organisations.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I hesitate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, but I wonder whether his point is relevant. I thought that we were dealing with a situation in which premises

''have been used in connection with the unlawful use or supply of a Class A controlled drug, and . . . that the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public.''

That is the subject of the clause, and I agree with the Government that we should not exempt organisations if they are carrying out those sorts of activities. The hon. Gentleman's broadening of the Bill's scope does not help the argument.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. Just so that everyone is clear about my view, I decide whether we are in order. The hon. Gentleman was stretching things a bit far, but even he realised that.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Cran. I wanted to take a little time on the issue because this is the only part of the Bill in which I have an opportunity to put those important points on the record.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I do not want to take too long and incur the wrath of the Chairman because we are straying slightly wide of the amendment. There will always be differences of emphasis, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that people should not stray over the line. We agreed with the Home Affairs Committee that some people will find it difficult to deal with the language and methods used to encourage ''harm minimisation'', but if we are to give people credible, valuable information, rather than encouraging them to learn from their mates in the playground, we must use such language and methods.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I know that such decisions need to be taken and that the Minister takes the issue seriously. I will not take up the Committee's time this afternoon

with examples, but will the Minister examine whether the Department of Health and other organisations funded by taxpayers are undermining the Home Office's overall message? I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing that.

We will oppose amendments Nos. 129 and 130, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, but we accept the Government's explanation of the so-called Henry VIII clause, and I will not press that matter. The question with regard to the word ''immaterial'' was a probing one, as I made clear. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 186, in

clause 1, page 2, line 28, after 'use', insert ', production'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I am happy to have a short debate, but I underline the word ''short''.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

The clause, in common with many others in the Bill, gives the police important new powers, and it is therefore very welcome. It is important at this stage, however, for the Minister to reassure us that those powers will be used. Throughout the Bill extensive new powers are made available to the police, local authorities and others. Many people in my community would want to see those powers used, because they will enable crack houses and other such premises to be closed down, and communities will be able to reclaim for themselves the sense of safety and community that is often diminished by crack houses. I would like to place on record my hope that those powers will be used extensively in the not-too-distant future.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I have a quick point to make. During the debate, much mention has been made of vulnerable people, and of spouses, partners and children. It should be noted, for the record, that vulnerable women and children often find themselves in a situation in which their property is used by transient men who use them, abuse them and then move on. This is a tough measure, but the reality is that children are being brought up in such an atmosphere, and where there are indications that the offences mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b) are occurring, we must bite the bullet and do something about it; otherwise such situations repeat themselves. That happens in my constituency, and no doubt in those of other hon. Members present.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I, too, welcome the first part of the Bill. It is valuable, and my local police force also welcomes its provisions. The police and others in my constituency have, however, expressed two concerns, which I would like the Minister to address. They are concerned about the use of the phrase ''serious nuisance'' in subsection (1)(b), and they think that the expression used should be simply ''nuisance''. They believe that the use of the word ''serious'' is open to a variety of judgments, and that those judgments could cause confusion and slowness in the delivery of appropriate legal controls.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I should place on record the fact that when I had a similar discussion with my local police they made exactly the same point. I hope that the Minister will therefore listen carefully to what police forces in different parts of the country are saying.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

My second point refers to subsection (2)(b), and the use of the phrase ''reasonable steps''. Again, the consensus of opinion within my local authority and police force is that that use of language could be problematic. In my constituency there are streets owned by corporations and companies that are faceless and unknown. Having to take ''reasonable steps'' to find out who has control and who has responsibility for the premises could give the police a serious headache when they are attempting to do what we all want them to do—reduce antisocial behaviour in our constituencies. The Minister should examine those two phrases and understand how the police and local authorities feel about them.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

Like many of my colleagues, I welcome the clause, but I want to know whether, once the Bill becomes law, the measure and its effectiveness will be carefully monitored. The difficult and challenging behaviour caused by crack houses is severe in many constituencies, including mine. It will be no good if, a year down the line, we find out that the police and their local partners are not using the clause as well as they could. Will the Minister keep a close eye on its effectiveness from day one, because it is potentially an excellent measure?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) that the powers need to be used, and I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) about the size of the nuisance and the fact that the powers are justified. The circumstances in which they may put people will be no worse than the circumstances in which they often place themselves.

Two patterns of use arise in Coventry. The main area of difficulty is just outside my constituency, where families generally face one of two circumstances: in inner-city council flats, tenants are either paid to make themselves scarce or, because of the family circumstances, effectively captured with their family and held captive while the activity continues. Although the measures might seem draconian, they are necessary. We are rescuing people from a difficult situation, not a perfect situation.

We must be up-front about our monitoring.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. I ask Mr. Ainsworth to face the microphone because otherwise it is very difficult for Hansard to hear.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I apologise, Mr. Cran.

It is essential that all measures in the Bill are kept under review and monitored. When we revisit and seek to improve measures, it prompts great mirth among Opposition Members, who attempt to misrepresent that as our trying to rewrite past measures. Dealing with antisocial behaviour is difficult, and it must be the highest priority. If the measures do not work as we want them to or they are not as effective as we need them to be, we must keep them under review and be

prepared to go back to them and to improve and amend when necessary.

On the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), I should say that, as I said earlier, I am concerned that we do not set the threshold too high so that the measures are difficult to use. We plan to spell out in guidance the kind of nuisance that we are talking about to aid the courts in deciding when to allow the measures to be used. If we just referred to ''nuisance'' and left it at that, we could, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, leave the way open to a person who does not want a particular facility in their area saying that a nuisance is created by its existence. We need to be clear about that.

The kind of premises that worry my hon. Friend and the police in Stockton cause serious nuisance. We must get the guidance right and clearly tell the police that where people come in at all hours of the day and the night, where there is soliciting or where drug paraphernalia is left in the immediate premises, that amounts to serious nuisance. That will trigger the offence and give the police a quick and effective measure to deal with it.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister mentions guidance. Does he not agree, particularly considering the speed at which the Bill has been rushed forward without proper consultation, that some draft guidance would have been welcome? It could have dealt with many of the questions that are now being raised. Draft guidance has been issued to Standing Committees on other Bills to show the Government's intentions. Does the Minister agree that it would have been a good idea?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

In an ideal world, yes, but one has to strike a balance between taking action and not taking action. The hon. Gentleman should not hide behind those devices—if he thinks that we have got it wrong, he should say so and vote against the measures. If he thinks that they are too draconian and do not deal with the problem, he should say so, not advance that silly argument, ''Let's do it, but let's do it next year.'' I have seen legislation massively improved by pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills and during Committee proceedings. If people engage properly in the debate they can have input and improve measures that the Government introduce. I sense that the hon. Gentleman does not really support the measures in the Bill, but does not want to come out and say so. He would rather ask why we did not consult, or why we do not act in two years' time.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

The police in my area wholeheartedly welcome the provisions as they stand in the Bill. They see them as an effective way of challenging and dealing with a rapidly growing problem, and would not want them to be lost in a lengthy consultation. They feel that the measures are just about right to deal with the current problem.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

My hon. Friend is right. Let us get on and do it. If we need to take further measures or do something else because of an ongoing nuisance in a

particular area, let us be courageous enough to act at the appropriate time.

We may come later to the other points that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South raised about landlords, reasonable steps and so on. We must get the provisions absolutely right. We have to expect good behaviour from people, but we need to cover in guidance what constitute reasonable steps on the part of landlords. We intend to do exactly that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Closure order

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 17, in

clause 2, page 2, line 41, at end insert

'or as soon as reasonably practicable'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 21, in

clause 2, page 3, line 14, after 'may', insert

'(but is not required to)'.

Amendment No. 22, in

clause 2, page 3, line 14, leave out third 'the'.

Amendment No. 23, in

clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert

'but the court has an absolute discretion to refuse adjournment if it considers that the public interest requires that a decision should be made as a matter of urgency.'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I can be relatively brief. Amendment No. 17 is intended to give greater flexibility. I hope that the Minister will accept this as a genuine attempt to try to improve the Bill. The Government's choice of wording here is too restrictive. Rather than matters having to be heard by the magistrates within 48 hours we suggest that it should be

''as soon as reasonably practicable.''

I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say about that.

Amendment No. 21 falls into a similar category. Subsection (6) gives the court the power to adjourn the hearing; the amendment would add that it is not required to do so. We think that that would provide greater flexibility. I see the Minister nodding slightly: I hope that he is acknowledging that we are not trying to damage the Bill, but seeking a little more flexibility.

I shall not press amendment No. 22. The Minister said earlier that he was up at 5 am preparing for today's business—he is always extremely diligent. I first read the part of clause 2 to which the amendment is addressed in the early hours of the morning, and I thought that I had seen a typographical error, but on reading it again in the cold light of day, I realised that my initial thoughts were mistaken and that the draftsman knew better than I did.

I am sure that the Minister has spotted that amendment No. 23 is more significant. We want the courts to have absolute discretion to refuse an

adjournment if they consider that the public interest requires a decision as a matter of urgency. It comes back to my experience at the sharp end in the courts and the sort of case to which the hon. Member for Stockton, South referred on clause 1 stand part. Referring to parts of her constituency, she said that a faceless, anonymous and unknown company that owns a lot of property could put to the court all kinds of specious excuses for why a matter should not be dealt with there and then.

We are talking about serious nuisances in communities and really serious drug offenders. It seems to us that it should be made absolutely clear in the Bill that the court does not have to accept specious reasons for adjourning a hearing, whether at the instigation of a property company, or of one of the drugs suppliers or dealers. Although the court's powers are usually considered to be unfettered—unless fettered by specific legislation—it would probably help if we made it clear in the Bill that the court has the discretion to refuse an adjournment and that the court should have the public interest as its prime consideration.

The Minister will understand that amendment No. 23 is of greater substance, although I hope that he will deal also with amendments Nos. 17 and 21.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

When I first read the amendments, I found them rather seductive. However, I have some concerns and I hope that the Minister will answer them.

I am concerned that one can go too far the other way and not have enough safeguards, and that cases would be adjourned whenever it was thought necessary. It also occurs to me that malicious allegations could be made. Although amendment No. 23 seems a common-sense proposal, I wonder what would be the test of public interest in such cases; I am not sure what level of public interest is involved. It is a matter of great importance. If instant action needs to be taken—perhaps there are lots of drugs or arms involved and some high-profile action needed—amendment No. 23 would make a lot of sense, but it might remove the opportunity to protect the innocent.

Although I have a certain sympathy with the amendments, I am concerned that they go too far. I shall not decide my response until I have heard the Minister's reply.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath will be pleased to hear that I, too, found his words quite seductive.

One of the essential elements of the power is its speed in tackling the serious problem of premises that cause serious nuisance and disruption to communities. It is essential that a closure notice be endorsed by a court at the earliest opportunity.

The 48-hour period between the issuing of a closure notice and its consideration by a magistrates court has been chosen to allow for all reasonable delays. Consideration has been given to likely delays caused by Sundays, bank holidays and other public holidays, and we are clear that the courts have the capacity to consider the cases within that time. Delay would result

in an inability to provide the community with instant relief from antisocial behaviour, which is why I am not enamoured of the lead amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Perhaps the Minister misunderstands the intended effect of the amendment. We are not saying that the reference to 48 hours should be removed; we are trying to add the words

''or as soon as reasonably practicable'',

so that a court is not forced to bring magistrates in on a Sunday or bank holiday Monday if the closure notice was served late on Friday night. Sadly, disturbances requiring instant police action quite often happen late on a Friday or Saturday night. We are saying only that the court should have flexibility. The words

''as soon as reasonably practicable''

would still mean quite a short time scale.

We simply want to make life a little easier for magistrates. I used to practise in the city of Coventry, which includes the Minister's constituency. In large urban areas, one can usually get hold of a bench of magistrates, but in some of the smaller towns in the more remote areas, which nevertheless have drug problems, that might be quite difficult. One would not want to lose the whole basis for a closure order because the police said, ''We can't serve this now because we can't get a bench of magistrates within 48 hours.'' Would it not be helpful to include in the Bill at least the words

''or as soon as reasonably practicable''

without delaying matters?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I am simply worried that opening up the legislation would lead to it being ''reasonably practicable'' on too many occasions to deal with cases in periods longer than 48 hours. I have no desire to disrupt magistrates' lives unnecessarily; equally, however, I have no desire to allow situations that are disrupting people's lives to go on for unreasonable periods. I am happy to think about what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have been considering this matter for some time and, as I said, we are convinced that 48 hours is workable. If I remain convinced that that is so, I will not open up the legislation so that people can delay and frustrate the process. I need to be convinced that there is a real practical bar to dealing with these matters within 48 hours.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am with the Minister on this point. There are different interpretations of what this part of the Bill is supposed to do. Surely the intention is that the police will act fairly strategically when they move in to close down premises. There seems to be an idea that, late on a Friday night, the police will suddenly hear about premises that they have not heard about before, and that they will rush out, slap a closure notice on them and try to drag the magistrates in over the weekend. However, we are dealing with a much more strategic matter. There will have been intelligence, and the police will probably have been involved in surveillance and consulted the local authority. They will act not at 9 pm on a Friday, but

at a time when a 48-hour time frame is entirely reasonable.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

There will be circumstances in which these issues arise. Action will need to be taken at weekends and cases taken to the court as soon as possible. I would be hugely worried about the signal that we would send if we removed the reference to 48 hours. I will look at what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said, because he raises this point seriously and has practised in the courts. If he thinks that the provision will not be practical in some circumstances, we are prepared to consider it again between now and Report but, as I said, I have had people look at the provision and they say that it is not a problem. If I remain convinced that it is not a problem, I will stick with a provision that is clear and that sends a clear message about how quickly these matters should be dealt with and that does not allow anyone to feel that they can delay for longer than is necessary. Where evidence is sufficient and convincing, the court may issue a closure order immediately. There is nothing to stop it from acting quickly, within 48 hours, when it believes that instant closure is the best way in which to provide relief for the community.

I had to smile at what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said. Ringing in my ears is what has been said about all the dreadful, draconian measures that I have taken through Committee in the past year or so—about how the Government are limiting the discretion of the courts and imposing mandatory requirements. Yet the hon. Gentleman is saying, ''Wait a minute. Let's not give anybody any discretion.'' I am in one of my more authoritarian modes.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister is welcome to be in authoritarian mode. Although I do not mind his making the point that he just made, I hope that he realises that amendments Nos. 21 and 23 are designed not to reduce the court's discretion, but to make clear how wide the court's discretion is. We are not trying to be more draconian than the Minister.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I would hate the hon. Gentleman to be more draconian than me after everything that he has said to me over the past year or so.

By providing an option to adjourn for up to 14 days, we have taken account of any additional time that the court may require. The court has discretion in allowing an adjournment. It is an option to be used when the court feels that the owner or tenant will be able to stop the misuse of the premises within the period of the adjournment. That allows those who face the closure of their property to take action to convince the court that they are both willing to resolve the problem and capable of doing so before their property is removed from them for ever, or for a period of time if they are the owners. If that proves unsuccessful, the closure order can still be made.

Before Report, I will think about what the hon. Gentleman said, because I do not want to provide a wider discretion for the court to consider adjournment when that is not absolutely necessary. Bringing relief is the most importance consideration. If there is real potential for permanent relief in a relatively short time,

we need to leave that possibility open. I do not want the courts to misinterpret the provision and think that they can simply adjourn cases, which in effect, by another means, would turn a 48-hour time frame into something longer. I do not want that type of practice to spread. However, before Report I will think again about what the hon. Gentleman said. If I perceive that there is a real problem, I will table an amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to the Minister both for what he said and for the spirit in which he said it. It is good of him to confirm that he will reconsider the wording. We do not want to drive a coach and horses through the Bill or provide extra scope for people to delay. We are trying to ensure that magistrates' lives are not made impossible and to acknowledge what happens at the sharp end.

As I asked in relation to an earlier group of amendments, when the Minister takes advice, will he make a particular point of talking to some Crown prosecution solicitors—perhaps in his home city—who have to deal with such cases in court? He should ask them—he might know some of them personally—about the kind of thing that lawyers on the other side will say and the excuses they will use if the Bill is left unamended.

There is always a danger in any bureaucracy—this is not in any sense a party political point—that people higher up the tree will say, ''Well, of course, Minister, your legislation must be absolutely wonderful,'' because they know that that is what Ministers like to hear. However, the Minister takes the issues seriously, and will want to try to anticipate any loopholes and close them. I am grateful to him and I am glad that he will consider the matter again before Report. At this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 187, in

clause 2, page 3, line 2, after 'use', insert ', production'.

No. 188, in

clause 2, page 3, line 26, after 'use', insert ', production'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I shall make some brief remarks about closure orders. I think that this will be a recurring theme in the Bill. To get a closure order, the case has to go to the magistrates court. Clause 2(3) states that

''The magistrates' court may make a closure order if and only if it is satisfied that each of the following paragraphs applies''.

It stresses ''and only if''. Paragraph (a) is self-explanatory—it applies if class A drugs are being used and supplied at the property. However, paragraph (b) applies if:

''the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public'',

and paragraph (c) if:

''the making of the order is necessary to prevent the occurrence of such disorder or serious nuisance for the period specified in the order.''

Paragraph (b) in particular will require evidence to be given at the magistrates court. My experience of talking to constituents and other hon. Members is that it is often difficult for police, environmental health officers, or anybody who might try to get a closure order through the magistrates court to obtain the necessary evidence, because people are terrified. Given the sort of people associated with crack houses, it will be difficult to get evidence that stands up in court. My local authority will often not take tenants to the magistrates court because it cannot get evidence against antisocial tenants.

When moving on from considering antisocial tenants to dealing with crack houses, which are often associated with gun crime, we need to reflect on the processes of evidence gathering. We have introduced all sorts of programmes to protect witnesses and to ensure that they are not intimidated when they go before the courts, but in all communities it is a serious problem to get people to come forward to give evidence to the court, to people in authority or to the police so that they can take action. We must consider how to ensure that, when applications go to court, there is sufficient evidence for the magistrates to make the closure order and that we do not witness the awful but common situation in which evidence is not presented because people are terrified of the consequences of providing it.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

My hon. Friend raises the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South. They are concerned to ensure that we have not set the barrier too high and that we are not rendering the powers difficult to use. I am as concerned as he is, and I have been trying to satisfy myself fully that we have not done that. I intend to continue to do that. When we say ''satisfied'', we mean that the court needs to be satisfied with regard to class A drugs. That might not be as straightforward as he might think, but we are talking about the balance of probability; not proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The police officer will have to have good reason and the court will have to be satisfied, and in order to be satisfied it will have to decide that the balance of probability is that the premises are being used for the sale, use, manufacture or production of class A drugs.

On the issue of nuisance, we expect to give guidance to lead the court in the direction of what constitutes serious nuisance and to allow professional witnesses to give evidence to that effect. My hon. Friend is right; getting near neighbours to give evidence is often the biggest barrier to taking action. Their lives are being plagued and they know that there is a massive problem in their area. Equally, they feel that if they come forward and give evidence, the consequences for them will be appalling. We must make certain that the power is usable from that point of view. It should be sufficient for guidance to say that if a local authority officer testifies to the fact that in the near area noise has been a continual problem, needles or other drug paraphernalia have been found in the near area and there has been an increase in prostitution over a period of time, the power can be invoked. Professional witnesses giving their evidence should satisfy the court enough for it to give the notice.

I want to continue to satisfy myself that that is the case, as I know that my hon. Friends will want to do. We know the size of the nuisance that exists, and we are determined to have a power for which the hurdle is set at the right level. It is not too high so that the police walk away from it because it is too difficult to use. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will continue to focus on the issue. I am as aware of it as he is.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Closure order: enforcement

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I beg to move amendment No. 131, in

clause 3, page 3, line 29, leave out 'or an authorised person'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 132, in

clause 3, page 3, line 33, leave out '(2)' and insert '(2)(a)'.

Amendment No. 25, in

clause 3, page 3, line 37, leave out 'before' and insert 'when'.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 are designed to probe the Minister for more information. My concern is about the idea of a

''constable or an authorised person'',

particularly when they enter a premises in respect of which an order is made. In our previous discussion, we were concerned about a local authority imposing a closure order, and it could be dangerous for someone to walk into the premises that we have discussed. I am rerunning some of a debate that I have previously had with the Minister when all Opposition Members had concerns about the powers given to community support and safety officers in dangerous situations. Are we talking about local authority workers? I would be concerned about their walking into a dangerous situation.

I should explain amendment No. 132, as it has taken me some time to get my head round it. The concern follows on from the idea of the authorised person. In particular, we are concerned about the application of subsection (2)(b) by an authorised person rather than a constable or other police officer. I will leave my comments at that. The amendments are probing, but I have deep concerns about an ''authorised person'' being put in a dangerous situation without having the training necessary to deal with it.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I want briefly to explain our amendment No. 25. I understand the hon. Lady's comments about her amendments and will listen with interest to the Minister's response. Our amendment is also to probe, but I hope that the Minister will give me the helpful reply that he gave to a couple of previous groups of amendments, in which he said that he would consider them carefully to see whether the Government could come up with amendments to improve the Bill before Report. The amendment is,

again, about a debate that happens in court, and the Minister and his advisers will know that whenever police officers are required to provide information before entering premises or arresting someone, it leads to endless hours of debate and cross-examination in court.

Subsection (4) is too restrictive. At the moment, it says that a constable or authorised person must

''produce evidence of his identity and authority before entering the premises.''

I can envisage much cross-examination of police officers or other authorised persons in which they are told that they did not show the people in the premises the warrant card or authority before entering. We have seen on television, if not in real life, the police using battering rams and other such equipment to break into premises used by drug dealers, for example, so it would be more realistic for them to show any warrant ''when'' they are entering the property. Provided that police officers who are in the process of entry show that they are police officers in uniform with a warrant card, such an approach would avoid the opening of another loophole.

If we are going to have this legislation, I want it to be workable. I do not want it to present opportunities for people to challenge the enforcement of the closure order. Therefore, it seemed to me that it would be very helpful to change the word ''before'' to the word ''when''. That would lead to less of a loophole, and to fewer hours of debates in courts, analysing what has happened, and whether the police or other authorised persons have acted properly. It is a small point, but it is one that I hope the Minister will take seriously. The intention on these Benches is to improve the Bill.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I rise to support both amendment No. 131 and the Conservative amendment, which makes a great deal of sense. [Interruption.] Yes, I know that I have a look of surprise on my face.

The police may suspect gun crime in a property, without necessarily having evidence. An officer knocking nicely on the door, showing his warrant card, and saying that he will issue something may not be appropriate in all circumstances. The police may feel that they need to go in wearing bullet-proof vests and beating the door down, because they would be under threat if they were to knock on the door gently. It is for exactly that reason that amendment No. 131 is so important, because it could be another authorised person who does that, instead of a police officer. The police are trained to deal with those situations and have access to firearms and equipment that they might need to deal with dangerous situations. I cannot think of any other authorised person who would have access to such equipment and training. Unless the Minister pulls something out of the hat, it will essentially be police officers. I think that amendment No. 131 and the Conservative amendment make a great deal of sense for the safety of the people involved in dealing with a potentially very dangerous situation.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Before we get carried away with the supposed stupidity of the proposals in the Bill, we

should consider whom we are talking about, and how it would work.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I did not say that.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I was not referring to comments made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, but to comments made by his new friend, the hon. Member for Ludlow.

When premises are subject to a closure writ, it is essential that they be fully secured. That would not necessarily happen during the initial raid. I refer to the enforcement of a court order that has taken place any time up to 48 hours after the initial closure took place by the police. That security will be necessary to prevent the property from being reoccupied and used for drug supply or use. It will also prevent the property from being taken over by squatters.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I understand entirely what the Minister is saying, and I can see that enforcement may take place after a court order. The Minister spoke about going in and securing premises against squatters or reoccupation. That reoccupation may have been happening while the case was going on in court. Therefore, the same people that I and the hon. Member for Ludlow have mentioned, who might be carrying guns, or who might be large-scale drug dealers, may be just as much a threat to the police after the order has been made as they were in the first instance.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

That is very true, but the hon. Gentleman should have a little consistency and a little patience. He will recall that, earlier in our debate this morning, he proposed that these powers be used without the police leading the circumstance.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

It is not my amendment.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

If he waits, he will see the effect of the amendment. The amendments would affect the ability of the police to ensure that the job is done effectively. It is not, in my opinion, a good use of police time for them to be carrying out the works that are required to secure the building. I do not know whether every constable has carpentry skills at his disposal. Although it should be a police-led operation—as we said this morning, those situations can be very dangerous—there will surely be a need for local authority workers to be present. They are present at other evictions in order to seal the premises, to secure them, to turn off the gas and to check all circumstances. Do we want a police constable to do that and to be given the necessary training in order to do so? Surely the constable would go in with a team of local authority workers or contractors, who will install security devices. A person engaged in that work needs to be authorised by the police. We do not want people to turn up and to secure premises without the permission and co-operation of the police.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I can see where the Minister is coming from, and in many ways I agree with him. However, the problem may not be that the amendment is wrong. Subsection (2) states:

''A constable or an authorised person may'',

which leaves it open for a council worker alone to turn up to do the work. The Minister might want to make it

clear that a police officer should be present when a possession takes place. We understand that someone needs to board up the windows and to brick up the doors, but as the Bill stands a council worker could be sent to brick up a house occupied by dangerous people.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. Hon. Members have clearly not listened to me. I said some time ago that interventions should be short, and I will insist that they are from now on.

Mr. Ainsworth rose—

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Before the Minister responds, will he take a short intervention? He may want to examine my point with that made by the hon. Member for Ludlow. If the clause concerns a purely peaceful visit from an authorised person, there is no need for subsection (3), which states:

''A person acting under subsection (2) may use reasonable force.''

If the clause addresses a situation in which people may need to use force, surely our point about a violent entry is important.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I am sure that it is.

It may well be that ''may'' is not needed. In Coventry, for instance—I am sure that this is true of many major urban areas—the council has developed its own security service that seals up premises in difficult circumstances. Its modus operandi involves the police, who ensure that it is backed up and is not left out on its own. However, the security service often gets involved in sealing premises that have been used for purposes such as squatting, and it often does that on its own. It needs to be satisfied that it is safe, and it needs to liaise with the police to ensure that back-up is available, but there are circumstances in which it will want to seal premises and the police will want it to do so.

There is nothing wrong with the use of the word ''may''. We are attempting to achieve effective partnership between local authority agencies, which pick up the pieces when those powers have been used. They relocate people, rehouse them when necessary, deal with any children involved and secure premises. In many cases, the premises will belong to a local authority or a registered social landlord, and local authorities have developed their expertise in those matters over a period of time. A constable must serve the enforcement of the initial closure order, but after that there is the practical consideration of who does what in order properly to enforce the court order and to secure the premises.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Subsection (3) states:

''A person acting under subsection (2) may use reasonable force''.

Is that reasonable force against property or against people? That makes a big difference.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

It is reasonable force against property. I know of circumstances in which council employees have had to break windows to secure properties, sometimes acting on behalf of absent tenants whose properties have been broken into and are open to further burglary. Reasonable force has to

be used to secure the property for the tenants. That does not involve community support officers or accredited persons. We are not trying to get local authority workers to do the dangerous work needed, which is quite properly undertaken by properly trained police officers; equally, however, we do not want police officers to have to have carpentry and locksmith's skills to secure premises.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

To clarify this point, if reasonable force is intended to be used only against the building not against a person, it perhaps should be put on the face of the Bill. At present, it states that

''an authorised person . . . may use reasonable force.''

A council employee could use reasonable force against a person in the building. I should like some clarification that the building is the specific subject.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

A constable may use reasonable force against individuals in the first place to effect the notice and to assist those who are securing the premises. Liberal Democrat Members suspect a problem that does not exist. The police must do the police job. It will be necessary in many circumstances for them to use reasonable force against people who refuse to vacate the premises. People who have involved themselves in the sale and supply of class A drugs can be extremely violent. It is not a job for local authority workers, but local authority workers—properly approved people—need to come in to enforce the court order by securing the premises. If the hon. Gentleman has genuine fears that the Bill does something other than that, I will look into the matter to satisfy myself that it does not, but he is worrying unnecessarily and I hope that I can satisfy him in that respect.

In securing a property by, for example, installing security screens over windows, it is likely that some minor damage will be caused to the property. Restricting the use of reasonable force would mean that the police and the authorised persons working on their behalf could not secure the property against illegal access. Those servicing the closure order can enter the property without the permission of the occupiers. However, if they are requested to provide proof of their identity and authority before they enter the premises, it is only right and proper that they should do so.

The current wording, ''before'', ensures the same consequence as the proposed amendment's ''when''. I was trying to fathom when ''when'' would work and when ''before'' would not work. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath got carried away with his example. With the momentum gained from battering down the door, the constable might find himself inside the premises before he had managed to show his warrant card.

The provision is in line with the way in which the police operate under other legislation. ''When'' could be as problematical as ''before''. A lawyer could argue that the officer did not show his warrant card before he entered the premises, but did so after he gained entry—in other words, when he was entering. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is a point that that

has identified with his lawyerly skills, I am happy to look at it, but people have looked at it and believe that ''before'' is the appropriate word that covers the circumstances that concern him.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As I hoped, the Minister is dealing with the point seriously. We do not suggest for a moment that ''when'' is perfect; I simply thought that it was an improvement on ''before'' for the reasons I set out. Perhaps he and his advisers can come up with another form of wording. I ask him to talk to people at the sharp end to see whether they do not agree that ''before'' may be too restrictive.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

As I said, I can see that ''when'' could be just as problematical. However, we shall continue to look at it and if we think that he is on to something—we do not believe that he is—we shall seek to make the changes. We need to ensure that the job of securing the property is done as effectively as possible. It would be inappropriate either to exclude the authorised persons and insist that only the police enforce the closure order, or to restrict the ability to use reasonable force in carrying out that role.

Although I really do not believe that there is a problem, I offer the caveat that I shall continue to consider the issues and if the provisions effectively allow a non-police officer to do a police job, the necessary changes can be made. However, I do not think that that will be necessary. The provisions are about allowing the reasonable force that is necessary to do the job to be used by both the police and those whom the police authorise to take part in the process of sealing and securing a property.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I am pleased that the Minister has said that he will look again at all the issues. That is particularly pertinent as far as amendment No. 25 is concerned. I am rather glad that we tabled the probing amendments and that we had the debate, because as it progressed it became clearer where my greatest concerns lie.

The issue centres on subsection (3), which states that

''A person acting under subsection (2) may use reasonable force.''

I can envisage the carpenter doing the work being jumped on, perhaps by someone under the influence of drugs who has got back into the premises. Such a situation will be difficult for everybody involved, because there will be an element of self-defence and fear when that person is not trained to deal with such circumstances. I accept the Minister's assurances that he will look at the matter again, but my concern has increased during the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I seek a small but important point of clarification and advice from the Minister. Subsection (5) refers to

''carrying out essential maintenance of or repairs to the premises.''

Does that imply a duty of care or an additional legal responsibility for the police?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I do not believe that it does. The word used is ''may'', but we do not want anyone to be under the illusion that in order for such things to be done the premises that have been secured may not be entered. We do not want the property to be destroyed by the elements or for the utilities to go wrong, so the provision gives the police permission to enter the premises at any time while the order is in effect to carry out essential maintenance or repairs. I do not believe that the provision gives any obligation or duty of care.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Extension and discharge of closure order

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in

clause 5, page 4, line 42, leave out 'three' and insert 'twelve'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 32, in

clause 5, page 4, line 43, leave out 'six months' and insert 'two years'.

Amendment No. 33, in

clause 5, page 5, line 9, leave out subsection (7).

Amendment No. 34, in

clause 5, page 5, line 17, leave out 'must' and insert

'should if possible, if circumstances permit'.

Amendment No. 189.

Amendment No. 35, in

clause 5, page 5, line 25, at end insert

'but failure to effect service shall not invalidate the proceedings and shall not prevent a hearing taking place'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

There is only one group of amendments under clause 5. Among the amendments that my hon. Friends and I have tabled, there is a Government amendment. I wonder if I can ask the Minister whether Government amendment No. 189 is a correction of a mistake. [Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding—even Homer nods occasionally. It is nice that the Government have spotted it before the Bill makes further progress. I am glad about that, and I have no problem with the amendment.

Amendment No. 31 relates to the length of time for which courts can extend the period of a closure notice. We are talking about serious nuisances—that is the term that the Government used in earlier clauses—and we believe that the courts should be able to extent the period for 12 months; three months is not long enough. In amendment No. 32, because we think that six months is not long enough, we provide that the maximum should be two years. Amendment No. 33 would leave out subsection (7), because we think that there is a need to save police time.

I am anxious to ensure that cases are not adjourned simply because the police constable involved—the word ''constable'' is used generally, but it could be an

officer of any rank—is not available because of other duties. I am sorry to keep using the phrase, but based on my years practising in the criminal courts, I know that one of the biggest wastes of court time is caused by the fact that the police officer is on sick leave, otherwise unavailable, on annual leave, or giving evidence in another case in another court. The whole shooting match then has to be adjourned, sometimes for months, until the same bench of magistrates is available. It is a huge waste of time. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that, and I hope that he will think it sensible that individual officers should not be summoned to answer the complaint. The Minister may not foresee those consequences arising, and I shall listen with interest to his response.

Through amendment No. 34, we would leave out the word ''must'' and put in its place the phrase

''should if possible, if circumstances permit''.

At the moment, subsection (9) states that

''a notice stating the date, time and place at which the complaint will be heard must be served on'',

followed by a list of the persons to whom the summons is directed: those listed in paragraphs (6)(c) and (d), and the constable and the local authority. I am not worried about the constable and the local authority—unless they are the complainants—but we are talking about people who may be quite difficult to find. For instance, they may be squatters, as was suggested in an earlier debate, or serious drug offenders. I am concerned that the whole procedure should not be stopped simply because the courts are unable to effect service. It would strengthen the Bill considerably if it included a catch-all discretion of the sort suggested in the amendment.

I referred to the various problems that we are having in my constituency with gypsies and travellers, and I know that they are a worry to many other hon. Members of all parties and in all parts of the country. Such people deliberately try to avoid having anything served on them relating to court. Many cases are delayed or stopped altogether because the people who are supposed effect service of documents say that they cannot not find the person involved: they say, ''They all claim to be called George Smith and we could not find Bill Jones—the person who was supposed to be served.'' Although one can always serve constables and local authorities, it would make the Bill a great deal stronger—there would be less of a loophole for use by those running crack houses—if it said that the service of the notice on the persons listed in paragraphs (9)(a) and (b) should be effected ''if possible'' and ''if circumstances permit''.

Amendment No. 35 has the effect that failure to effect service should not invalidate proceedings and should not prevent a hearing taking place. Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are both aimed at the same mischief. I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit of the amendments and perhaps in due course the letter.

We are making a genuine attempt to improve the Bill because we are very much aware that the closure notices will be important if the legislation is to work. That is why we suggest that the closure notices should

apply for a long time. We do not want a crack house or other drug-dealing establishment to be closed down for a short period, only to reopen after three months and one day so that the whole procedure has to start again, and we are sure that the Minister does not want that either. If the premises can be closed for a substantial time—a maximum of two years—we may find that we have dealt with the nuisance in a more final way.

I hope that dealing with our amendments compendiously has been helpful. I did not want to detain the Committee long, but I stress that these are not probing amendments; they deal with matters of great substance.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Following on from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, may I ask the Minister about a matter that has baffled a few of us? Whether the closure order is for three months, six months or whatever, if the closure notice and then the closure order were served on a council tenant who had control of the property, could the tenant return to the property after the three or six months, or would he or she automatically lose that property? Similarly, if it were a housing association property, what would happen to the tenant of the housing association on whom the notice was served?

I take the point of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath; the period is open to debate—there always has to be a judgment about that—but none of us wants to see premises that have been closed down reopening after three months or six months. What is the position after three or six months of the tenant of a council or housing association who is in the property when the closure notice or closure order is served on it? Can he or she return to the property?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

This group of amendments highlights some interesting issues. The time issue is sensitive: while we have sympathy with the point that the problem should not recur, we know that in many parts of the country there is a shortage of premises to rent, so properties that have been closed down need to be brought back into the housing market as quickly as possible. There is a balance to be struck. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why periods of three and six months have been specified and what consultation was held to arrive at them. It is not a simple matter of closing a place down for a couple of years—in some places that would cause great distress to a completely unrelated family who were denied access to a house that they needed. The matter has to be addressed.

We are concerned about amendment No. 33. There might be cases, particularly under subsection (6)(d), of

''a person who has an interest in a closed premises but on whom the closure notice was not served,''

returning and wanting the property back. Some students own houses—perhaps they are bought for them by their parents. After university, they go round the world for six months; they rent the house to somebody who decides to run a crack house. The local authority closes it down. The owner, who was untraceable while backpacking round the world,

returns to discover a boarded-up house. The effect of the Conservative amendment would be to remove the ability of the court to direct the constable who asked for the closure to explain what had happened, and then to take a decision. I am surprised that the Conservatives would want to harm property owners who might, wholly unintentionally, have been caught out in that way. The amendment is therefore somewhat surprising.

We have, however, a great deal of sympathy with amendment No. 34. Clearly, there are cases in which it will be extremely difficult to serve a notice. Clause 5(9) refers to

''the persons to whom the summons is directed''

and

''the persons mentioned in subsection 6(c) and (d)''.

Subsection (6)(c) refers to

''a person on whom the closure notice relating to the closed premises was served''.

However, the person may well be nowhere to be found. The idea that a notice must be served may cause problems—after all, we are dealing in many cases with people whose are transient.

This is an interesting mixed bag of amendments. The first couple of amendments raise interesting questions, and we want to hear the Minister justify the time periods. We have concerns about houses not being available for other families to move into. Amendment No. 33 could cause quite severe difficulties to genuine owners of properties who were not related to the problem. Amendment No. 34 appears sensible, in that it would prevent the system from being clogged up by the failure to locate someone who was, or was involved in, running a crack den or crack house, and who was perhaps in Thailand trying to pick some more up and to import it into the country. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments seriously, particularly amendment No. 34.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Extending the duration of the closure order through amendments Nos. 31 and 32 is unnecessary and undesirable. The power will be used in specific circumstances against premises known by the police to be a source of drug supply or use, and to be causing aggravation to the community by serious nuisance and disorder. Such premises need to be brought back into proper use as soon as possible to encourage strong and healthy communities. Leaving premises empty for longer than is necessary sends the wrong message to and about neighbourhoods that are trying to rid themselves of those problems. Extending the closure period would have no additional value in ensuring control over supply but could have considerable negative effects such as vandalism, squatting and arson as well as a negative visual impact.

The police have increasingly to consider this issue, and they cannot prosecute in all circumstances. Sometimes, they have to use the powers that we are trying to give them through various measures to disrupt the supply to the drugs market. Where areas have serious difficulties of that type, the relevant partnership will discuss the use of the powers. It will

secure agreement as to how they will be used, and they will be used to disrupt the drugs market and move people out of consistent patterns of supply. The length of time for which the Bill provides is sufficient to ensure that, at worst, the supply is moved somewhere else, where we may need to take exactly the same measures to keep on top of the problem and to keep the market secured. To drive out the nuisance and to bring the premises back into good and proper use, we need not keep the premises closed for the lengths of time that the Opposition suggest.

Instead of the proposed extension, there is a need for close consultation with local authorities by the police. Local authorities and other landlords will need to take swift action to retrieve the property and to bring in new occupants. The duration of the closure order as the legislation is drafted ensures that the premises can be retrieved by possession proceedings through the courts where appropriate.

That brings me on to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. There will be no automatic denial of reoccupation by the individual but the period when the property is in effect sealed and they have been removed gives the local authority or registered social landlord the ability to effect possession procedures to ensure that that individual does not return if that is what it thinks is right and appropriate. In those circumstances, it can let the premises to someone else.

It is not a blanket ban. One can envisage circumstances in which it would be appropriate to allow someone to move back into the premises—perhaps a vulnerable person who has been abused, or whose property has been effectively taken over. If that person has particular reasons for wanting to live in that area, if the local authority believes that it would be appropriate and safe for them to return to those premises after the stated period, and if the local authority believes that reoccupation was not going to result in the resumption of illegal activity, that local authority ought to be free to make a balanced judgment. In cases where a local authority does not want the occupants back, it can go through the normal possession period while the premises are effectively secured.

Amendment No. 33 removes the power of the court to call relevant constables to give evidence. It is essential that, in considering the discharge of a closure order, the correct representation and information is before the court. The court must consider whether that closure order is no longer necessary to prevent disorder and serious nuisance. Advice on that can be gained only through consultation with the police. That does not necessarily involve a particular officer, who may not be on shift or may have been moved. We envisaged that the appeals would be moved against senior officers, who would delegate the responsibility to turn up at court and to give evidence. The bureaucratic problem that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath envisages is not a problem in reality.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I hope that the Minister will understand that the Bill as drafted says,

''the justice may issue a summons directed to such constable as he thinks appropriate''.

The problem is that, whatever the Government intended, and however much the Minister is able to flesh it out in his response, the justice of the peace has complete discretion. If the justice of the peace issues a summons to one particular constable, we will have precisely the problem that I am talking about. I hope that the Minister will talk to his advisers and think about that issue again.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I will, but I would not wish to deny the court the ability to take that action where there were special circumstances in which the court needed to interrogate a particular individual. I believe that the overwhelming majority of orders will be against senior officers, who will delegate the responsibility to appear in front of magistrates. However, I will look at the issue. If I am advised that the situation is other than the one that I have set out, I will let the hon. Gentleman know. I accept that the situation that he has set out would be unworkable. I am sure that he is not trying to deny the court the ability to summon an individual, in cases where that court felt that it was essential.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister is right. I am not intending to deny the court that opportunity but I wanted to highlight the fact that there is a genuine problem. Perhaps what the Minister needs to do after he talks to his advisers is table a Government amendment—either on Report or in another place—that makes clear in the Bill the delegation that he is talking about. That is not what the Bill says, as drafted.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The hon. Gentleman can take that as read. I will check that what is in the Bill does what I am saying it ought to do, rather than what he fears it might do.

Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 raise a valid point about the requirement for notice of a hearing in relation to an application for extension or discharge of the order to be served on all parties, and the possible effect that that could have on proceedings if that is not observed. That merits further consideration. I propose to look at it again and to return to it on Report.

Amendment No. 189, as the hon. Gentleman rightly assumed, puts right a typographical error that would have been spotted on re-reading.

I request that the Committee agrees to Government amendment No. 189 and that, in light of the assurances that I have given, hon. Members do not press their amendments, particularly amendments Nos. 34 and 35.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am delighted to hear what the Minister says about amendments Nos. 34 and 35, and that he has firmly stated that he thinks that we have a genuine point, which he will consider. I hope that that will result in some Government amendments that deal with it.

It is not our intention to prevent authorities from putting accommodation back into legitimate use. However, I say to both the hon. Member for Ludlow and the Minister that all we will do by extending the maximum time is to give the court greater powers. The courts will know the housing situation in their areas.

Legislation that states, as we suggest, that a closure order must not have effect for more than two years and that the courts may extend the period for which the order has effect by a period not exceeding 12 months does not specify that those periods must be 12 months and two years; each is a maximum.

There may be circumstances in which courts want to avoid a restart of the misuse of the property after three months and one day. The hon. Member for Gedling and others on the Government Back Benches have talked about that matter. In the cases of serious drug misuse that this part of the Bill seeks to deal with, there is a fear that, if the time limits are too short—they cannot in any circumstances be longer than three months and six months—the problem could recur in the very way that we want to avoid. If we were proposing an amendment that said it had to be 12 months or two years in every case, I could understand the argument better. Giving the courts the power to use the longer time limits if appropriate—that is all that we suggest—is a serious option.

The Minister says that he will consider the matter and the hon. Member for Ludlow was fair in saying that there is always a judgment to be made about the appropriate maximum time limit. I understand the point about bringing accommodation back into use. All that our amendment seeks to do is to give the courts a wide maximum and complete discretion within it. We have discussed the point about the constables and the Minister has agreed to have further discussions on the matter. I am grateful to him. Given that he will consider all the points that were made in this useful debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 189, in

clause 5, page 5, line 20, leave out '(2)' and insert '(3)'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Appeals

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in

clause 6, page 5, line 35, leave out '21' and insert '42'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 37, in

clause 6, page 5, line 36, at end insert

'but may be brought immediately after the original order or decision'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I can be brief. These are probing amendments. We thought that it was worth debating the appropriate time limit. If I may adopt what was said by both the hon. Member for Ludlow and the Minister in the previous debate, there is always a judgment to be made about what the appropriate time limit is. We felt that it may be sensible to have not merely 21 days as the limit for an appeal but 42 days—

six weeks—because it is not unknown for people, absolutely legitimately, to take three weeks' holiday, whereas it is pretty unusual for somebody to be away for six weeks. That is the basis of my suggestion that 21 days may be a bit on the short side.

Amendment No. 37 is on a similar point. We felt that we may make the Bill more flexible by saying that an appeal could be brought immediately after the original order or decision. That gives flexibility both ways. It gives a longer maximum but states that one need not wait: one can bang in the notice of appeal straight away if necessary. It has been known for somebody to misidentify premises—honest mistakes can be made. If there were a need for an immediate appeal and everybody was ready for it to be heard quickly, there would be flexibility in that regard. The Minister will understand that we do not seek to damage the Bill. We simply aim to introduce extra flexibility. It is worth putting the reasons on the record.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.