Clause 2 - Closure order
Anti-social Behaviour Bill
5:15 pm
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I can be relatively brief. Amendment No. 17 is intended to give greater flexibility. I hope that the Minister will accept this as a genuine attempt to try to improve the Bill. The Government's choice of wording here is too restrictive. Rather than matters having to be heard by the magistrates within 48 hours we suggest that it should be
''as soon as reasonably practicable.''
I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say about that.
Amendment No. 21 falls into a similar category. Subsection (6) gives the court the power to adjourn the hearing; the amendment would add that it is not required to do so. We think that that would provide greater flexibility. I see the Minister nodding slightly: I hope that he is acknowledging that we are not trying to damage the Bill, but seeking a little more flexibility.
I shall not press amendment No. 22. The Minister said earlier that he was up at 5 am preparing for today's business—he is always extremely diligent. I first read the part of clause 2 to which the amendment is addressed in the early hours of the morning, and I thought that I had seen a typographical error, but on reading it again in the cold light of day, I realised that my initial thoughts were mistaken and that the draftsman knew better than I did.
I am sure that the Minister has spotted that amendment No. 23 is more significant. We want the courts to have absolute discretion to refuse an
adjournment if they consider that the public interest requires a decision as a matter of urgency. It comes back to my experience at the sharp end in the courts and the sort of case to which the hon. Member for Stockton, South referred on clause 1 stand part. Referring to parts of her constituency, she said that a faceless, anonymous and unknown company that owns a lot of property could put to the court all kinds of specious excuses for why a matter should not be dealt with there and then.
We are talking about serious nuisances in communities and really serious drug offenders. It seems to us that it should be made absolutely clear in the Bill that the court does not have to accept specious reasons for adjourning a hearing, whether at the instigation of a property company, or of one of the drugs suppliers or dealers. Although the court's powers are usually considered to be unfettered—unless fettered by specific legislation—it would probably help if we made it clear in the Bill that the court has the discretion to refuse an adjournment and that the court should have the public interest as its prime consideration.
The Minister will understand that amendment No. 23 is of greater substance, although I hope that he will deal also with amendments Nos. 17 and 21.