HL Deb 23 October 2003 vol 653 cc1760-9

1.5 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Closure notice]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 9, leave out "and" and insert "or

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 deals with territory that we covered in great detail in Committee. I do not intend to reiterate that debate. Clause l provides that a closure notice can be placed on a residential property where drugs are being produced or distributed and where there is anti-social behaviour. The only reason I have for returning to the matter is that in his response, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said: A range of measures are in place and it might be useful if I clarify them in correspondence so that I can describe how we see them working. We can then share the knowledge across the House.—[Official Report, 11/9/03; col. 437.]

I may well have missed something, but as far as I am aware I have not received that reply. It would be useful if the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, were to share that knowledge across the House now.

Amendment No. 3 deals with a separate and new issue, but one around which we had much discussion in our debates on this part of the Bill in Committee. There was wide concern that third parties in a group of people, who might be completely innocent of both anti-social behaviour and any use of drugs because they are completely dominated by whoever is committing the offences, might none the less be adversely affected if a closure order was made.

The closure order requires consultation with the local authority, but there are local authorities and local authorities. Consultation can be someone asking the chief executive's department a question and the department saying, "Yes, that is fine. That has been a thorn in our flesh for a long time", without thinking of the possible consequences for innocent parties.

Amendment No. 3 is intended to deal with that situation. The housing authority has responsibilities that are in a sense in conflict with the purpose of this part of the Bill, because it is responsible for housing homeless people. It will always be a delicate balancing act between the priority for closure and the priority of dealing with the social consequences that flow from it, especially for housing. We reworded some of our earlier amendments to explore that issue and draw it to the House's attention once again to enable the Government to give us a more detailed explanation of how they see the provision working.

I shall not spend much time on Amendment No. 4, because we tabled it earlier. We prefer Amendment No. 3, which is rather more precise. I beg to move.

Lord Moynihan

My Lords, I rise to address Amendment No. 2, which is standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Like high hedges, this is a new subject, but one 1 think exceptionally fitting and appropriate as regards Clause l.

The anti-social nature of drugs in sport; the lessons from the FA handling of the Rio Ferdinand case; the current status of the UK anti-doping regime and the urgent need for government action led me to table the amendment. I congratulate Michele Verroken and her team at the Doping in Sport Directorate of UK Sport for their longstanding commitment. As Minister for Sport I had the privilege to publish a report in 1987 that asserted at government level for the first time that the sports councils condemned the misuse of drugs in sport and that we needed to take action there and then. She has ensured by her actions and dedication that the UK has been at the forefront of the global campaign against doping abuse in sport.

However, we have seen many changes in the intervening 16 years, and the time is overdue for Government to respond to the changes in the current structure. The key issues that should be borne in mind are: first, that UK Sport is now a distributor of the lottery funds established by the Conservative Party and a significant and important funder of athletes and governing bodies. It also plays an important role in representing the Government in the international sports arena, particularly as we bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games. It cannot be right that the organisation that funds and represents elite sport should at the same time be involved in doping control.

The discomfort of being perceived by some, however unfairly, as gamekeeper and poacher requires the Minister for Sport to ensure that the agency for doping control is granted independence of UK Sport as a matter of urgency. With independence it should be directly accountable to the Minister and hence to Parliament. In parenthesis that should lead to a reorganisation of the valuable remaining work of UK Sport, which should be redirected to other agencies.

Secondly, the world anti-doping code has now been published. The Government and the International Olympic Committee have accepted the new anti-doping code, which encompasses all the elements in order to ensure optimal harmonisation and best practice in international and national anti-doping programmes, including the code, international standards and models of best practice. The code places new and more onerous responsibilities on both the national anti-doping agency and the British Olympic Association. It needs to be implemented fully and urgently.

Thirdly, athletes will, when tested positive, often challenge in court the resultant sanctions process. All too often governing bodies have found their own rules and processes wanting; the relationships they have with their member clubs at the very least uncomfortable; and the financial burden of fighting such cases onerous. The process can and has brought a governing body to its knees. It is time to give greater powers backed by legislation to a UK independent agency for doping control. It is unacceptable that governing bodies vary significantly in the way that they deal with doping infractions and sanctions, yet there is no recourse if they fail to meet their obligations.

We need a comprehensive system and a fairer and more transparent structure—which is why I have tabled this probing amendment—a system that speeds up disciplinary processes and ensures independent commissions with appropriate powers. Even if the Government do not take the opportunity provided by my amendment and return to the House with their own proposals, they should at least provide a national framework or code against which all governing bodies deal with cases under the umbrella of recognition of eligibility for funding. Independent sampling officers, for example, should be present throughout every testing process. Confidentiality should be protected, and club doctors and administrators facing clear potential conflicts of interest should be removed from the process immediately.

In coming to these conclusions, the House will note that we are now beginning to lag behind some of the more recent developments in national anti-doping policy for sport around the world. The future is with an independent agency reporting to the Minister. As part of signing the international standards for doping control, the Government have stated objectives to have internationally consistent anti-doping policies with laws and/or regulations that ensure the authority of the national sport governing bodies to require athletes to undergo doping tests and to sanction athletes who violate doping regulations.

Yet they are not acting. As anti-doping becomes increasingly complex, involving medicine, pharmacology, toxicology, social issues and human rights, the issues arising from doping are too complex for individual governing bodies of sport and make them timid in this area. There is a need to be robust and consistent. The consequences are enormous for sportsmen and sportswomen and clubs both amateur and professional. An independent statutory authority with consistent powers should be the response to this probing amendment, for there is nothing more antisocial than drug abuse in sport. If kids in schools believe that the only path to the top is to take drugs and cheat, we will see more deaths and lifetime injuries from the abuse of performance-enhancing drugs, which all too easily can turn competition between sportsmen into competition between chemists' laboratories.

This legislation gives the Government an opportunity. Now is the time for action. If the Government are not ready to act by Third Reading, I hope for a commitment that within six months the Secretary of State will come forward in both Houses of Parliament with proposals to establish a new UK independent agency for doping control in sport and to strengthen the existing agencies for dealing with doping cases in a robust, consistent and fair way, under a unified system to cover all governing bodies.

Paul Hayward put the matter clearly today in the Daily Telegraph: One day, legislators might come to see systematic drug use for what it is: systematic fraud, or obtaining money by deception. Drug abuse in sport is one of the most anti-social of all activities. It is pernicious because it turns the dreams of our children, the future sports stars—the kids in the classroom—into nightmares. Some of their heroes are exposed as drug ridden cheats; others as foolish, whose mantra lies somewhere between the crass stupidity of, "I didn't know what I was doing when putting THG under my tongue," and, "Sorry, sir, I simply forgot to be tested". Both are inexcusable and now is the time for action.

1.15 p.m.

Lord Addington

My Lords, Amendment No. 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, attracts my interest. I am not sure whether there is a doorway in the Bill to view the supply of such drugs as a nuisance. However, he raised the significant point that drugs in sport—both illegal and performance-enhancing—are getting beyond the grip of the sporting bodies in this country. Many were set up in a different era when the amateur sportsman took part. They are struggling with the ramifications of greater professionalisation. Virtually all sports are going through that process.

The Government should give some help and guidance. If that means taking this area of responsibility away from the sports bodies that is probably the only way forward. They will always be lagging behind. Will the Government give me some idea of their thinking? That would be a great help. Unless we have government enhancement we will always have catch-up areas and the odd embarrassment to sportsmen, as is currently breaking in the news. Then there is the idea: "Don't worry, your chemists are that little bit better than the part-timers that the enforcing body can employ". We do not want an Olympics where chemists and lumps of meat take part and individuals take part in another competition. The Government should think long and hard about stating whether they have any long-term ambitions over the role.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)

My Lords, it may be convenient if I deal with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, first and come back to that of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, because it is nearing time.

I share the noble Lord's abhorrence of the misuse of drugs by sportspeople to enhance their performance and thereby gain unfair advantage over those who act with propriety. I do not know whether the Bill is the appropriate place to introduce such provisions, but I understand why, bearing in mind what has happened, the noble Lord chose the opportunity to explore the issues. I acknowledge that he said fairly that it is a probing amendment.

We do not see that there is any case for extending the powers in the Bill. This Bill was, of course, designed to deal with specific problems caused by class A drugs, and class A drugs and performance enhancing drugs are very different. So while the use of drugs in sport is to be deplored, performance enhancing drugs are not associated at the moment with serious nuisance and do not cause the type of problem that these powers are intended to address. I can certainly assure the noble Lord that we believe that adequate and appropriate measures are currently available to the sports governing bodies to handle athletes who misuse drugs. However, I hear what he said. There appears to be an inherent conflict in being poacher and gamekeeper at the same time.

There may be much merit in looking at this issue in greater depth. However, at this stage it is not an issue that we think should divert police resources from where we think they should be directed on the anti-social behaviour issue. If sports grounds, for example, are associated with class A drug use and there is serious nuisance or disorder, they would meet the criteria for the use of the powers as currently drafted. I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Addington, adds his voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I shall certainly take away those remarks and share them with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

I turn to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I now understand better that his amendments, too, are probing amendments which seek better clarification. I wondered whether we were going to return to the argument about putting together the requirements. I am therefore very grateful that he has clearly indicated that that is not his intention.

On Amendment No. 1, I do not think that it is desirable for us to allow closure simply on the basis of the use of drugs or nuisance rather than the use and serious nuisance. I am grateful to the noble Lord for indicating that he now agrees with that position. However, other powers do exist and can be used effectively to manage the anti-social behaviour of non-drug users. The application of these powers to non-drug related nuisance is therefore, in our view, unnecessary. I understand that a letter has been sent to the noble Lord by e-mail, but I am awaiting further clarification on it. Had I known that he wanted to raise precisely this issue I would have ensured that it was available to him. I can certainly undertake to try to get it to him today.

The Bill sets out that the notice must give information on housing support and other help. Any person made homeless has the right to seek re-housing from the local authority, but only those who meet the criterion set out in the law will be re-housed. In other settings, those who do not have a primary homelessness need under the law will not be given access to re-housing. We think that there is no reason why that should apply here. That is in relation to Amendment No. 3.

I am glad that that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that Amendment No. 3 was probing. We think that the amendment would prevent the effective use of the powers, and the noble Lord clearly does not intend that. The closure notice already contains advice for those affected on how to contact legal and housing services. Therefore, if a person is entitled to re-housing, his application will be considered by the local authority on a case-by-case basis. Nothing in the Bill will adversely impinge on any of the other rights and duties in the Bill. So if an individual who has been made homeless falls within the current categories, he will be able to pursue his right.

I turn to Amendment No. 4. When a premises is in multi-occupation, it is possible for only a self-contained part of the building to be closed by the closure order. Consequently, communal areas can quite easily be excluded from the closure order by the court. Where vulnerable persons are involved, they will be advised of sources of help. I hope that that helps to clarify the position.

Returning to the noble Lord's letter, I shall not only seek it for him, I shall send him a further letter of apology for not having had it earlier.

Lord Dixon-Smith

an interesting debate to wind-up in view of the intervention of my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who regrettably has had to leave although he was here for the explanation of his amendment. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for dealing with the amendments in that order because my noble friend had a business appointment that he was absolutely unable to avoid. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his support of my noble friend.

The Minister's response has indicated that the Government understand the problems and difficulties in relation to drugs in sports. My noble friend said that it was a probing amendment. We seem to have been able to address in this legislation quite a few issues of an anti-social nature. My noble friend thought that it was legitimate to raise that issue and I think that it has been worthwhile. If the noble Baroness is going to take this matter to the DCMS for examination, I think it will find that there is an issue that requires attention. The independence of the athletics drugs police is, I think, going to be an essential element in the future organisation of sporting probity.

I am grateful for the Minister's response to my amendments; she has been extremely helpful. It is always difficult to know what to do if one has not received the reply that one was expecting as the result of an earlier stage in the Bill, because replies keep coming through. I would have loved to have been able to stand up and say, "My Lords, I withdraw the amendments because I have had the explanation", even if it had arrived this morning. In the event, that was not so. I have now had the explanation, for which I am immensely grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]

Clause 4 [Closure of premises: offences]:

Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 5: Page 4, line 10, after "section" insert", unless they are under the age of 18,

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 5 and to speak to the other amendments in this group. Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 address the penalties that might be given to a young person under the age of 18 who offends under this part of the Bill. It inserts on the face of the Bill that someone in this age group should be given a community sentence. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 add community sentences to the range of options available for people above the age of 18.

I raised this matter in Committee, supported I am delighted to say by the expert knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who also supports these amendments but unfortunately cannot be with us this morning. On that occasion, the Minister replied that it was not necessary to put this provision on the face of the Bill because sentencers already know that they can issue community sentences in such cases. However, there is really no reason why community sentences should not be put on the face of the Bill as an indication that they should seriously be considered as an appropriate sentence for adults who commit these relatively minor offences, and that, for young people, for whom custody should always be the last resort, they are the only really appropriate option.

The Minister, in the meetings that she has so generously attended recently with those of us concerned about young people, has often reiterated that the Government believe that custody should always be the last resort for young offenders. If that is really the case, I sincerely hope that she will prove that statement to be true by accepting Amendments Nos. 5 and 8, thereby avoiding the possibility of a court at some time in the future choosing to use a custodial sentence for a young person committing one of these minor offences. After all, these offences are not among those which indicate that the offender is a danger to the public and should therefore be incarcerated. I therefore hope that she will accept this group of amendments. I beg to move.

1.30 p.m.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I am sorry that I have not been able to give the noble Baroness the comfort that she sought. I reiterate that I agree with her wholeheartedly—as I have on each occasion—that custody should be a last resort, not only for juveniles but for all those who come before the court. However, it is always important to allow the courts to exercise their discretion because we cannot legislate for the minutiae and the differences that may occur between individual cases. There is always scope for an exceptional case that does not comply with the normal rule.

The penalties set out in Clause 4 (3) are, as I said, the maximum penalties that the court can impose following summary conviction. We do not see the need for the Bill to spell out all the sentences options. The options available to the court are set out in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, as amended. Options range in hierarchical order from imprisonment, community service order and fines to conditional and absolute discharge. As we said on the last occasion, that Act governs how the courts are entitled to exercise their discretion and puts the limit on what the court can do. Legislation creating a new offence spells out the maximum period of imprisonment that can be imposed or the maximum level of fine, but a sentencing court can always impose a lesser penalty. The court is under no obligation to hand out the maximum sentence. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that it is very rare that the maximum sentence is ever handed out. In those circumstances, detention for those under 18 is unlikely, but there may be some circumstances in which detention for someone under the age of 18 may be the appropriate sentence on the particular facts of the case. It allows the court the discretion to make that decision.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton

my noble friend continues to deal with the question of under-18s, does she not agree that this style of drafting is extremely unfortunate? It does not indicate to the ordinary reader that these maxima are accompanied by a vast range of other penalties, especially because of the way in which they are set out—as two separate penalties that may be imposed or both. Would it not be more sensible to ask the draftsmen to progress to a style that makes it clear that offences under this section are liable to a maxima on summary conviction and indicate the other penalties that are available, as the noble Lord, Lord Sudbury, suggested in Committee?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I disagree with my noble friend because Members of the Committee will know that we have a plethora of Bills in which fines and imprisonment are specified. It would mean that on every occasion we would have to list all the options available under the Sentencing Act. If we decline to do that it could be said that an option that is included in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 was implicitly excluded because it was not enumerated on the list. It would make the drafting incredibly complex. It has been a totally accepted way to specify the maximum penalty in each section and then the whole of the 2000 Act comes into play. That is why we passed that Bill.

Thankfully, the people who have to interpret these provisions do not lack expertise—judges will have their attention directed to the powers under the Act. We are in a happy position because our lay justices and professional judges are able to discharge that task with great facility.

I understand the reason for the noble Baroness's amendment and her anxiety about the matter, but this is the way that we have accepted that we will introduce Bills. When we went through the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, as amended, we made that clear. We have done a good piece of work on that Bill, and it will also apply in this provision. The noble Baroness knows that, in the ordinary way, there will be guidance and support for juvenile Benches that have to apply the provisions. We will examine all such issues in the ordinary way in terms of the rules and how they should apply.

I repeat that I understand entirely the noble Baroness's concern, but it is misplaced. We have the necessary security. It was the work of this House and the other place that achieved that in the 2000 Bill.

Baroness Walmsley

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her reiteration that custody should always be a last resort, especially but not exclusively for young people. She will be aware that what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and I are both looking for is clarity, as she is herself. One of my concerns is the plethora of Bills to which she referred. With that large amount of legislation, I fear that sentencers will look to this particular legislation and may overlook the fact that custodial sentences may not be the most appropriate. We would like to see more community sentences.

I differ from the Minister in her statement that it is necessary to have a maximum statement of custody for under-18s. I do not believe that for these offences a custodial sentence is ever appropriate. Some of her honourable friends in another place would agree with me—honourable Members who have a great deal of knowledge and expertise in issues involving young people. However, I see that we are not able to change the Minister's mind, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, this seems to be a convenient moment, so I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until this afternoon after Starred Questions.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 1.37 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]