Anti-social Behaviour Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mrs. Brooke: 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.

Mr. Ainsworth: 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

Column Number: 065

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: 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.

Mr. Ainsworth: 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

Column Number: 066

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.

Mr. Hawkins: 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.

Mr. Ainsworth: 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.

6 pm

Mrs. Brooke: 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.

Ms Taylor: 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.''

Column Number: 067

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

Mr. Ainsworth: 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

Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in

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

The Chairman: 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'.

Mr. Hawkins: 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

Column Number: 068

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

Column Number: 069

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.

 

---

Prepared 6 May 2003