| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I remember rightly, Amendment No. 107 would ensure that children and adults are not suddenly made homeless by the closing of premises. If they are, that will just make the social situation worse. These orders are on the whole made against the more deprived sections of society in the poorer areas where the social problems are much worse than in more prosperous places. We all know about some of these sink estates and the unattractive surroundings, but the damage done to children and girlfriends, wives and partners—whatever they are called now—by their being made homeless must be protected against. This is what the amendment is designed to do. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 107ZA and 107ZB, which are grouped with Amendment No. 107. The noble Earl’s amendment deals with some valid worries. Since Committee, the Government have tabled their amendment, which promises some guidance on this issue. Both the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, have served as councillors in their time, and they will be aware of the sorts of pressures that problem families can bring to bear. Our worry on
23 Apr 2008 : Column 1593
9.30 pm
The reason why I come back to the experience of noble Lords as local councillors is that they will probably have shared my experience as a councillor of the extreme difficulty caused by neighbour disputes. However excellent the council and however much it can put mediation services in place, those disputes are probably one of the hardest things to deal with as a councillor. The same issues would apply to registered social landlords; the buck would stop with councillors. The pressure to just get rid of the family, to get rid of the problem, is immense. That is why there need to be more safeguards.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, raised the issue of the children, but we also have to think about the whole family. They may be problem families; they may come back late and be loud and difficult. There again, they may not be incredibly difficult but their neighbours, if they are very quiet, may find them so. Perhaps there is one very noisy family in a cul-de-sac of very quiet families, so they will be seen as very anti-social. That is the reason why we say in Amendment No. 107ZA that appropriate steps must,
This is a situation where a closure order could become almost the first option that authorities take. As I have said, excellent authorities with all the services in place are unlikely to do that, but the Minister will admit that there are still some very poor authorities. Some are in the categories of poor or failing. We would not want to think that they would abuse this legislation and make a closure order the first step.
The reason for our second amendment is that a closure order also needs to have been through the magistrates’ court for it to have a look at whether any appropriate arrangements are in place. We are grateful that, since Committee, the Government have put down their Amendment No. 107A about guidance, but the fact is that although it is a good first attempt—if I might use that slightly school essay phraseology—it needs to be fleshed out a bit. I should be grateful if the Minister could look at expanding the section on guidance at least to include some of the points that we have put in our amendments. This situation is different from where closure orders are used for drug issues; they could start to be used because of pressures in the neighbourhood simply to get rid of the family, which is seen as much the easiest option.
I speak from years of experience. I can remember, as a councillor, being driven to looking to purchase houses in isolated situations and all sorts of things. If this measure had been available as an option, there would have been immense pressure to use it instead of solving some of the deep-seated problems of problem
23 Apr 2008 : Column 1594
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I rise to support these amendments and to add a couple of points from the reports of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. This power would make people homeless, some of whom will have had nothing to do with whatever was going on that led to the closure, which is not a very good outcome, and, as the JCHR has said, would interfere with certain human rights, respect for family and home life, and peaceful enjoyment of property.
The Government have said that they intend to produce guidance, which Amendment No. 107A suggests. But, in the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, guidance is not good enough. These matters can be so serious for vulnerable people that they should have the protection of the law, which should be in the Bill. These amendments seek to do that and I therefore support them.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the safeguards in the first three amendments in this group are essential. There is, no doubt, already some experience of what happens as a result of the compulsory closing of a drug-dealing house or premises. That is a fairly limited category, whereas the powers conferred by this Bill go much wider. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, pointed out, they are very likely to affect children, who may be in no way responsible for the unacceptable conduct of their parents or other relatives. It is incumbent on the Government to respond on the issue of safeguards.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for tabling Amendments Nos. 107, 107ZA and 107ZB, and for the passionate comments from other Members of the House. This brings us back to the issue of ensuring that the process for making premises closure orders gives proper consideration to the needs of children and vulnerable adults. I accept and I share many of the concerns, as do the Government, which is why I have tabled a government amendment, the details of which I shall come to shortly.
In Committee, I listened to the concerns expressed by noble Lords and I recognise that they want to ensure that a premises closure order would be a proportionate response to the disorder, which would be made after all other options had been tried and had failed. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, touched on that issue. The Committee was also concerned about the implications for homelessness, especially for the vulnerable occupants of the premises. The Government have never disputed that these are important matters for agencies to consider when making an application for an order, but we considered that they would best be addressed in non-statutory guidance.
23 Apr 2008 : Column 1595
Following the debate, we have reconsidered our position. Amendment No. 107A would make the proposed guidance statutory, which I hope will address the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. That is the position as it exists in Scotland. Furthermore, there will be a duty on anyone using the power to have regard to the guidance.
In Committee, I also undertook to consider what material I could provide to the House to give an idea of what the guidance would consist of. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot provide a complete draft of the guidance now. It will need to be carefully drawn up by officials in consultation with the agencies which will be responsible for exercising the new power. This issue was raised by Members of this House and, therefore, we will address that point.
However, we would anticipate basing it on the Scottish model. It is likely to cover, among other things—as I have said, it has to be refined and carefully drawn up by officials in consultation with agencies—the purpose and intent of the legislation; the definitions of terms—for example, anti-social behaviour, significant and persistent disorder, persistent serious nuisance; the serving of notice; the making of the case in court; the enforcement of the order; the appeal mechanism; the assessment of and support for vulnerable adults and children—very important areas that have been mentioned; the issue of homelessness; and examples of circumstances where the power should be used and where it should not be used.
Noble Lords were particularly concerned about what type of behaviour might constitute a serious persistent nuisance or disorder. I can well understand that, and again the Scottish guidance, which will have to be refined, gives examples that may include persistent, intimidating and threatening behaviour towards residents and members of the public; the presence or discharge of a firearm in an adjacent premises; significant problems of sexual acts being committed within the premises; consistent evidence of discarded drugs paraphernalia and other dangerous items; serious disorder associated with alcohol abuse, for example in and around drinking dens; high numbers of people entering and leaving the premises at all times of the day or night and disruption caused to residents; and constant and intrusive noise, or excessive noise at all hours associated with visitors to the property. I expect that the guidance for England and Wales will be drawn up along similar lines, but it has to be refined.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. This is not a frivolous point, but some of what he has listed sounds like what takes place in a normal student house. For the residents in a street of 50 properties of which four are student houses, many of the things he has mentioned might occur. Lots of people may be coming and going; students drink and are noisy, and I expect that they have sex quite often. Can he assure me and put on the record that this is not aimed at student behaviour, for example?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I can assure the House that that is absolutely not the case. As the noble Baroness rightly points out, some of these things
23 Apr 2008 : Column 1596
However, if a series of activities were to take place, particularly if people were shooting firearms and having sex close to the windows so that everyone could see them, there comes a time where even if they were students, others might say that something should be done. We cannot give them complete licence.
These examples are indicative, but given that the guidance will cover the concerns that have been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and other speakers, I hope that they will feel able not to press their amendments and that the House is willing to agree to government Amendment No. 107A.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I understand the problem of banging—in more than one sense of the word—in a house and of course it is extremely unpleasant for other people in the neighbourhood. But I hope that we will be able to see the guidelines and possibly even consider them in a Question for Short Debate. I hope also that they will be published in draft so that this House and another place can talk about them if they so wish. I accept that the Government have taken on board some of our concerns, and with that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 107ZA and 107ZB not moved.]
Lord West of Spithead moved Amendment No. 107A:
(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance relating to the discharge of any functions under or for the purposes of this Part.
(2) A person discharging a function to which guidance under this section relates must have regard to the guidance in discharging the function.”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 118 [Offence of causing nuisance or disturbance on NHS premises]:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 108:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the history behind the initial exclusion of Wales from the Bill is long and convoluted. Having spotted this anomaly, I am grateful to the First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, and the Minister for Health and Social Services, Edwina Hart, for meeting me during the Recess and spending time on the issue. I am also grateful to Alun Michael MP, and the 25 signatories to Early Day Motion 1254 in the other place, which supports my efforts to amend the Bill, and to Huw Irranca-Davies, a Minister in the Wales Office, who met me yesterday and was most helpful. I was therefore delighted today to receive an e-mail, which I should like to quote for the record, which states:
“The Government aim to table the amendment later this week for Third Reading. The Government amendment will give the Assembly Ministers the option to request the powers laid out in
23 Apr 2008 : Column 1597
That is exactly what I wanted.
The clause is important as it provides for action prior to an assault happening. It is, in effect, designed to prevent assault if at all possible. The Assembly has had an extensive consultation on violence in the workplace and has its task force on the issue, so it is quite appropriate that it should be able to trigger the commencement of this when it decides that it should. I hope the ability of the Assembly to use the clause will serve it well in the future.
It was important to rectify the anomaly, as criminal justice is outside the competencies of the Government of Wales Act and the Ministry of Justice retains England and Wales responsibilities. I will be pleased to withdraw my amendment in anticipation of one to be tabled by the Minister. I invite him to confirm the e-mail for the record. I beg to move.
9.45 pm
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the Government seemed not to have noticed that they were proposing to make criminal law for England when there was no provision in the devolution settlement for the Welsh Assembly to make a similar law. This is a very appropriate way of dealing with it. I express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for all her work on the issue, and to the Ministers that she has consulted, who have come up with what seems a satisfactory solution.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, before responding to some of the points made, I should explain why Clauses 118 to 120 were drafted as they were.
As noble Lords will be aware, the clauses make it an offence to cause nuisance or disturbance to NHS staff on hospital premises. Tied to the offence is a power for constables or authorised NHS staff to remove persons causing nuisance or disturbance from hospital premises. It is important to understand those points because that is how this will work.
These provisions are primarily concerned with the management of National Health Service premises, which is a devolved responsibility in Wales. We naturally consulted the Welsh Assembly Government prior to the introduction of the Bill last summer, so it is not quite right to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, did, that this was an oversight in our approach. It is worth putting on the record that at that point the Welsh Assembly Government were undertaking their own review of how best to eradicate the behaviour to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred, and to ensure that staff working in the NHS in Wales were fully protected. So, in those circumstances, the Welsh Assembly Government decided that they did not wish to apply these provisions to NHS premises in Wales. Accordingly, as currently drafted, the provisions apply only to nuisance and disturbance on English NHS hospital premises.
23 Apr 2008 : Column 1598
In recent weeks we have taken a fresh look at this matter. We are extraordinarily grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for raising the issue both in Committee and again today and I confirm that, following discussions between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh First Minister, the Welsh Assembly Government have agreed that these provisions should now be extended to Wales. In these circumstances, I can accept the noble Baroness’s amendments in principle. Unfortunately, I cannot invite the House to agree to the amendments here and now, as they are incomplete in a number of respects. In particular, we need to ensure that the definition of a relevant NHS body in Clause 118(4) properly reflects the organisation of the NHS in Wales where there are NHS trusts and local health boards established under the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 rather than, as in England, NHS trusts, primary care trusts and NHS foundation trusts established under the National Health Service Act 2006. In addition, we need to adapt the references to a “relevant English NHS body” in subsections (5) of Clauses 119 and 120, and amend Clause 150 to provide for bespoke commencement arrangements in Wales.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his contribution too. I think that we have now arrived at the right place, in view of the seriousness of these issues.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, in the light of the Minister’s response and confirmation that redrafting will occur, I have pleasure in saying that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 110:
“(d) a registered hospice or specialist palliative care unit.”The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss spoke of the anomaly that, under the wording of the Bill, some hospices would be covered and others would not. She mentioned a specific example of a hospice situated in the grounds of the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital being covered by the Bill, while an identical hospice in another town, which just so happens to be situated outside the boundaries of the hospital grounds, will not be covered. My amendment aims to remedy the anomaly by including all hospices and specialist palliative care units.
I speak as someone who has worked in hospices for much of my working life. For the most part, they are quiet, tranquil places. However, it is not all that uncommon for family members or acquaintances of staff, fuelled by alcohol, to become aggressive or abusive towards staff. The other problem is that hospices by their nature have controlled drugs on the premises. There are, fortunately, remarkably few attempts by addicts to access those drugs, but that may change in future. Hospices have security staff at
23 Apr 2008 : Column 1599
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |