|
Matthew Green (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particularly considering the speed at which the Bill has been rushed forward without proper consultation, that some draft guidance would have been welcome?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 Draft guidance has been issued to Standing Committees on other Bills to show the Government's intentions.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?
Mr. Ainsworth: 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: 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.
Mr. Ainsworth: 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
Column Number: 055
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
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 21, in
Amendment No. 22, in
clause 2, page 3, line 14, leave out third 'the'.
Amendment No. 23, in
Mr. Hawkins: 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
Column Number: 056
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.
Mrs. Brooke: 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.
Mr. Ainsworth: 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
Column Number: 057
in an inability to provide the community with instant relief from antisocial behaviour, which is why I am not enamoured of the lead amendment.
Mr. Hawkins: 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?
Mr. Ainsworth: 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: 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
Column Number: 058
at a time when a 48-hour time frame is entirely reasonable.
| 
