EXTENSION OF GROUND OF NUISANCE OR ANNOYANCE TO NEIGHBOURS, &C (Hansard, 30 April 1996)

§ Mr. Curry
I beg to move amendment No. 96, in page 75, line 29, after 'of' insert'—(i)'

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 97, 102, 103, 106 and 107.

§ Mr. Curry
In Committee, Opposition Members tabled a number of amendments to try to strengthen local authorities' powers to deal with drug dealers. I undertook to examine which of those would make a further impact on the problem.
As a result of that undertaking, I have introduced amendments Nos. 96 and 97, which will extend the scope of local authorities' powers by allowing eviction to take place where the tenant has been convicted of an arrestable offence in the locality of the dwelling. At the moment, the tenant must have used his or her home for the offence. I believe that this will be a particularly useful measure to deal with drug dealing cases where the traffic may well take place in the common parts of the estate rather than in a person's home.
Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 replicate that provision for assured tenancies.
Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 are consequential.

§ Mr. Raynsford
The Minister has confirmed that the amendments were tabled in response to amendments tabled by the Opposition in Committee, which were specifically aimed to deal with the problem of people using their tenancies as a basis for drug dealing. We recommended that a conviction for a drugs-related offence committed in, or in the immediate vicinity of, a person's home should provide a mandatory ground for possession. Tenants throughout the country are extremely anxious about the damage caused to their communities by the behaviour of drug dealers and they want tough responses.
9.15 pm
I accept that the Government have brought back an amendment which goes some way towards doing what we want, but it could have unintended consequences. It refers only to tenants who are convicted of a criminal offence related to the area where they live. That could involve offences that are inherently anti-social, such as drug dealing, but it could equally involve an offence with no anti-social implications for the neighbourhood or to other tenants in the area. While no one would condone an offence committed from a council property, or indeed from any other property, I question whether the purpose for which we tabled the original amendment was to take double action against someone who has been convicted—quite properly—of an offence when that offence has caused no nuisance to that person's neighbours.
Although we are pleased that the Government have responded, we are not satisfied that the amendment goes all the way, and we fear that there might be unforeseen consequences that we certainly did not intend. As we are glad that some progress has been made, however, we will support the amendment.