Clause 1 - Closure notice
Anti-social Behaviour Bill
10:45 am
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)
I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for the way in which he introduced the amendment. I fully accept his point that it is moved only in the desire to improve the Bill, but I hope that, as I have listened to him, he will listen to me, because we have problems with the amendment.
Those problems are largely in line with the points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). I am glad to see that she supports at least this part of the Bill. She has said that she supports other parts of the Bill but wants them dealt with in another place some time in the future. It sounded a bit like what I call the prayer of the tempted—''O God, make me pure, but not yet''—when she said that she supported parts of the Bill but that they should be dealt with in other vehicles or at another time. The Government believe that antisocial behaviour is an urgent problem. Other vehicles could adequately be used for some measures against antisocial behaviour, but we need to press on with the measures in this Bill.
On the amendment, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath should know that we proposed the new powers as an additional resource to aid the police in combating the scourge of class A drugs, which destroys communities. They are strong, quick and effective powers for the police to protect communities from the substantial nuisance and disorder that is often associated with the use and supply of class A drugs. The powers are not designed to replace the use of the criminal law. Where there is evidence of the unlawful use and supply of drugs, the police will continue to prosecute vigorously under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The amendments would extend the proposed powers to local authority officers, and I can appreciate why the hon. Gentleman feels as he does; many hon. Members might consider such an extension worthwhile. However, for a number of reasons, it would not be appropriate. I hope that he realises that it might be dangerous to enter premises in which there is serious nuisance or disorder to present a closure notice to its inhabitants, some of whom might be involved in the use or supply of class A drugs. The
powers should be maintained as a police power because police oversight and direction will be vital to their successful use.
The powers should be exercised in consultation with local authorities. In cases in which two local authorities are involved, it will be necessary to consult with both, as social services might be provided at one level and housing at another. The draw on social services as a result of the action taken under the powers may be significant, and the housing authority will have to be involved. Co-operation with the local authority or authorities is essential, which is why we have specified that they must be consulted when a closure notice is made. However, police resources and experience in handling such sensitive operational information and cases will ensure the effective use of the powers. It will also ensure that they are used strategically, as part of local action plans against persistent drug dealing.
Local authorities play an important role in partnership with the police in tackling the nuisance of crack houses. Given the nature of the operations and the potential risks involved, we believe that the powers are properly vested in the police. I am sure that no Committee member would want the situation to arise in which a local authority, having consulted the police but without having gained their consent, initiated action in cases in which the police had ongoing operations. In such matters the police must take a lead because they have the necessary strategic overview and because of the dangers involved. It is not appropriate for local authorities to be in the lead in such actions, although they should be involved.
I hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will reflect on my words and that he will withdraw the amendment.