|
Mr. Ainsworth: Let me say to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that we put in ''by air or carbon dioxide'' in order to avoid doubt and to cover future developments. We did it having taken advice on the drafting of the legislation as well as on what was potentially available. However, the hon. Gentleman's point seems reasonable. Perhaps we should think about it, given that something that is different again may well be around the corner. I shall be happy to think about the point and to consider whether we are creating a potential problem rather than avoiding doubt.
The wording of the clause is complex. We are trying to cope with future developments in technology or
Column Number: 366
fashion and we need a new power. The existing power in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 requires the weapons not to have been generally available before 1988, and operates as a total ban. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman-and will copy the letter to the rest of the Committee-to spell out why subsection (3) is necessary, so that we are clear before Report about what is intended and what is not. I want to allay his fears about the provision being wider than we want it to be.
On the issue of compensation, I can tell the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that the firearms in question have been used for criminal purposes on a significant number of occasions. It is incumbent on the Government to take action to prevent their further misuse, and we believe that we have struck a fair balance between the interests of the individuals who own the guns and the wider public interest. Existing owners will be able to retain the weapons for their own use, and retailers will be able to run down stocks and obtain authority to sell any surplus overseas if they wish, as will manufacturers. We do not believe that compensation is payable in those circumstances.
It may well be that there are those who wish to continue to own those weapons. Many owners, as I have said, own them responsibly and use them responsibly. However, it is undeniable that the weapons are being widely misused. I have no criticism of the manufacturers, who at our request have put in place a voluntary import control and have co-operated with the Forensic Science Service in trying to find a technical fix. I agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire: if a technical fix had been possible-if we had been able to render the weapons unconvertible, or very difficult to convert-that would have been far and away the best solution. The manufacturers tried to help us to achieve that, but it has defeated them and the Forensic Science Service.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Closure of noisy premises
3.15 pm
Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 260, in
clause 45, page 34, line 35, leave out 'public'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 261, in
clause 46, page 35, line 16, leave out 'public'.
Matthew Green: The amendments are related. They are intended to make this part of the Bill more effective. The Local Government Association suggested them, arguing that
''The word 'public' should be removed as it is an inaccurate reference. Most 'nuisances' particularly in regard to noise are classified in law as 'private' rather than 'public' nuisances. For a nuisance to be public there has to be other issues in addition to noise involved such as rubbish, odour etc.''
The LGA stated:
Column Number: 367
''The use of the word 'public' effectively cancels out the new powers granted by the clause to local authorities as most noise nuisances are private. As a result these powers would most likely be infrequently used and thus not tackling the real issue. Removing the word public will give local authorities clear powers to make a closure order in relation to premises where both private and public nuisance is being caused.''
Perhaps the Minister will tell me that that is nonsense and that the problem does not exist. However, on the assumption that we are trying to make this part of the Bill work, I hope that he will consider the amendments.
Mr. Randall: Is the gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument that the clause would be more effective if it were to state simply that
''a . . . nuisance is being caused''?
Matthew Green: Yes.
As I said, the LGA helped with the amendments. It suggested that the word ''public'' should be removed because that would enable local authorities to use this part of the Bill more effectively. It is possible that the advice that I have received is wrong. If that is the case, I am sure that the Minister will tell me so.
Mr. Hawkins: I can be brief, although as the amendments are minor, we could have a stand part debate on the clause.
I too received the LGA briefing-as, no doubt, have many other Committee members. It states that although the suggested closure powers for noisy premises relate only to public nuisance, most noise nuisances are private nuisances. Under the clause as drafted, the usefulness of the power is limited, and the LGA wants it to be extended to include private nuisances. That is worthy of debate. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say in response to the Liberal Democrat amendments. After that, we might deal with some of the wider issues on noise nuisance in the stand part debate.
Mr. Ainsworth: Clause 45 gives a power to local authority chief executives to issue closure notices to licensed premises from where noise is causing a public nuisance and where the closure of the premises is necessary to prevent the nuisance. The power can be delegated to environmental health officers under clause 46.
The wording of clause 45 on the power to issue closure orders, including the reference to public nuisance, is the same as the police powers to close premises under the Licensing Bill. The term ''public nuisance'' has been used in clauses 45 and 46 because it has wide meaning in common law, including nuisance caused to a section of the public. The power relates only to licensed premises and is not designed to deal with disputes between individual neighbours where noise might cause a private nuisance. It would not be appropriate to give EHOs a power of closure wider than the powers that have already been given to police officers.
I say to the hon. Member for Ludlow that the normal powers, such as noise abatement procedures, can still be used against licensed premises that are causing a private nuisance to a single near neighbour. In the clause, we are talking about the power to close a
Column Number: 368
premises forthwith. We have already given that power to the police and we are now potentially extending that to a delegation of EHOs. That is only appropriate where there is a nuisance that clearly goes beyond a private nuisance.
As I said, other abatement powers are still available whereby people can go in and tell those on the premises what they have to do to respond adequately to a complaint and give them time to do so. We hope that those powers will be enforced properly. The new power will mean immediate, forthwith closure and should be considered only where there is clear public nuisance.
Matthew Green: The Minister has gone a long way to satisfy me that it is appropriate to keep the word ''public'' in the clause. It was important, however, to ask why it should be kept. The circumstances in which the Government intend the powers to be used have been made clear and make a lot of sense. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Hawkins: I will not take up much of the Committee's time, because the basic principle underlying the clause is good and I have no doubt that the chief executives of my two local authorities-Surrey Heath and Guildford, one of which is entirely in my constituency and one of which is partly in it-will find the additional power useful. I have often complained in the past, as the Minister has cause to know, that the Government are laying more and more duties on local authorities without providing the funds for them. In this case, I can genuinely say that the power to make closure orders will be useful to chief executives of local authorities. I have no doubt that it will be used on occasion.
Committee members will have noticed that my hon. and right hon. Friends and I tabled a couple of amendments that were not selected, although they appear on the amendment paper. It would be out of order for me to speak to them since they have not been selected-I must confess to some puzzlement about that. I shall seek expert advice from the Clerk to find out why after the sitting. The fact that we tabled a couple of amendments shows that we were interested in the clause. We were trying to explore the Government's thinking.
There is an issue about subsection (2), which states:
''This subsection applies to premises if-
(a) a premises licence has effect in respect of them, or
(b) a temporary event notice has effect in respect of them.''
I wonder whether that limitation on a potentially useful power to a local authority chief executive is needed. The Minister partly dealt with that in responding to the Liberal Democrat amendments to the clause. We are trying to deal with antisocial behaviour, and as constituency MPs we all receive letters from people complaining about noisy events, but some of the most significant events that take place are completely unlicensed. I am talking about a situation where there is no premises licence or
Column Number: 369
temporary event notice. I received some letters a year ago about an illegal rave where some people invaded a factory unit, took it over and held an illegal rave. I am sure that the chief executive would have loved to have the power to issue a notice to make the premises subject to this order at that time, because the premises were otherwise empty.
I hear what the Minister says: that the provision is intended to be limited to licensed premises. Will he say a little more about why it cannot be made wider? Will the Government keep it under review? It is the kind of issue that may be raised in another place, where colleagues will ask, ''If we are doing this anyway in statute, why not make it a wider application?'' That is the point I wanted to make during the clause stand part debate. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.
| 
