Anti-social Behaviour Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Vernon Coaker: 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: 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,

Column Number: 070

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.

6.15 pm

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.

Mr. Ainsworth: 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

Column Number: 071

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.

Mr. Hawkins: 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''.

Column Number: 072

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.

Mr. Ainsworth: 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.

Mr. Hawkins: 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.

 

---

Prepared 6 May 2003