Anti-social Behaviour Bill (Hansard, 11 September 2003)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 5, leave out "superintendent" and insert "inspector The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with simple questions of organisation and man management in the police service. Most, if not all, police forces operate with core services, particularly in crime investigation and so on, run from police headquarters. Below that they have divisions, the number of divisions depending on the area and size of the force. Below the divisions, they run on community policing teams largely based on the towns—in some counties it will be the main towns—and so on. The question is about the appropriate level at which a decision to start on a closure notice procedure should be taken.
Divisions have superintendents as their head, and community policing teams have inspectors as their head. Of course it is difficult to make a clear distinction between one level and the next because the whole operation, if working effectively, works as a team. However, the essential local knowledge and requirements for opening procedures for a closure notice will be at the local level. The issue then is whether the provision is at the appropriate level to authorise the action.
I have a preference, from what I have learned through life in the management of men, for giving as much responsibility as possible to the lowest possible level. I inquired what my police service felt about the issue, and I do not know whether I reassure the Minister when I say that it agreed with the Bill, although it accepted my point. However, the description that I received from my police service was that the superintendent level was appropriate, because he would exercise an audit to make sure that the procedures were or had been properly carried out. It acknowledged that the initiative would almost always come at inspector level.
432 If inspectors have the initiative and all that the superintendent does is offer an audit facility to make sure that the procedures have been correctly carried out—if the inspector is any good and worth his office, he will have it correct—I do not see why the responsibility should not lie there. If that happens and if anything goes wrong, the superintendent is in a position to deal with it. As the Bill proposes, if the matter has to go to the superintendent in the first instance, if anything goes wrong it has to go back to headquarters.
All that shifts the responsibility up the machine, and I do not like that; I prefer it lower down. I like to believe that officers at the level of inspector are responsible and capable of taking appropriate decisions vis-à-vis the community in which they work. They in any event will have the local knowledge on which the whole procedure is based, so that is where the responsibility should lie. The amendment chimes with what I feel about man management, so I thought the case certainly worth arguing before the Committee. I beg to move.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
It is one of those perennial debates to ask where responsibility should ultimately rest, on what the noble Lord would probably acknowledge was a strategic decision in terms of police operations. Many debates in this House have focused on the appropriate levels to take such decisions. On this matter, there is room for a quite understandable debate. I start from the same point as him: I, too, believe that responsibility should be forced down to the lowest possible level and closest to where events really happen in our communities. Therefore, I have great sympathy with him on that point.
However, we need to think about the effectiveness of the work of the superintendent. From our point of view in government, having taken very careful account of the police service's own views—I was very interested in the noble Lord's point about that—we think it necessary that the officer who authorises the use of powers should be of a sufficiently high rank to have the necessary overview of all law enforcement action conducted in the area. This was discussed at considerable length in another place, where the case for authorisation at inspector level was argued as well.
The Government have taken a careful look at the points that were made in that debate. Operational matters are always of great interest to us, and we want to make sure that we get matters right. Having listened carefully to what the police themselves have said on this matter—they must have had internal debates on it—we are still very much of the opinion that any change to the level of authorisation could in the end prevent the appropriate use of power as part of a range of measures to control drug supply and the serious nuisance that we all acknowledge it brings with it.
We acknowledge that inspectors take many operational decisions. But it is still necessary to ensure that the use of a power as strong as that proposed is appropriately authorised. We also believe that a 433 superintendent will be best placed to take a view on other relevant operations and to consult with the other agencies. That is an important issue.
It is certainly my experience as a local politician—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will have a similar view—that we, within the leadership team of the local authority, with the chief executive, used to meet on a regular basis to review policing within our borough. Those discussions always took place at a strategic level with the superintendent—who had the overview of that police division. It seemed to us that important decisions such as this are rightly located at that level. The superintendent has command of the whole of a division and understands and is constantly advised about what goes on within it.
I believe that it will be possible—and the police service obviously agrees with us—that the superintendent will be able to turn round decisions quickly and effectively. I cannot see that there will be an over-bureaucratisation at the level at which the decision is being demanded.
There are good precedents for this, in terms of the level of oversight. I cite in aid of our position the powers in Section 42 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which deal with the continued detention of suspects beyond the usual 24-hour limit and up to a maximum of 36 hours without the authorisation of a court, and Sections 56 and 58, regarding the suspect's access to legal advice and the right to have someone informed if the arrest is delayed. In those instances superintendent is the appropriate level. We believe that that is the appropriate level of seriousness in those instances, and that it accords with the case here.
I understand the point that is being argued. However, on careful reflection, and having consulted with members of the police service at some length on this matter and having listened to their views, we believe that we have got the provision right. It is for that reason that we resist the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord is convinced by that argument and will feel happy and confident in withdrawing it.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response—and unsurprised. As I indicated, it chimes in with the feelings of the police service in my area, whose members I consulted on the issue. That said, I am bound to say that I do not agree—but that is because I happen to believe in a slightly different style, and so on. I do not think that the point is worth pursuing hard. I shall study with care what has been said in case it raises any further issues. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 9, leave out "and" and insert "or The noble Lord said: I was moved to table this amendment because I found, on reading Clause 1, that I became slightly confused as to whether we were trying to deal with anti-social behaviour in the Bill— 434 which is what the Bill is all about—or whether in fact we were trying to control drugs. If we are trying to do that, the wording of the clause seems slightly odd.
Under the Bill as drafted, a premises may be closed if the relevant officer, has reasonable grounds for believing…that at any time during the relevant period the premises have been used in connection with the unlawful use, production or supply of a Class A controlled drug, and"— these are the key words— that the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public". If you have some quiet, discreet agents who behave themselves, apparently that is okay, and you could not take closure action against them. I am quite sure that that is not what the Government intend.
It is perfectly clear that there are plenty of other laws that can be used against drug dealing and so forth; but you would not be able to close a premises down under this clause—which I had always assumed was an additional power to enable people to close crack houses. I still think that, because of what I believe to be slightly mistaken wording, it would be better to remove the word "and" and insert "or", so that if a premises is used in connection with drugs it can be closed down; or, if it is a base for anti-social behaviour of a serious form it can be closed down. But to require them both to be a prerequisite seems to me to leave a certain amount of confusion, particularly on the drugs front. I beg to move.

§ Baroness Walmsley
I oppose the amendment. The Government have plenty of tools to deal with the quiet, discreet drug dealer. But where there is a closure notice—which could have a very serious effect on innocent people living in those premises—the threshold needs to be higher than it would be if we had either the provision in paragraph (a) "or" that in paragraph (b). From these Benches, we believe that both are needed.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
In starting, I ought to remind the Committee why we are introducing the new powers to tackle the problems with properties where the use or supply of class A drugs occurs and to tackle the consequent serious nuisance and distress caused to neighbours and to the wider community. Those are the reasons behind them. We want to give the police a power that is quick and easy to use, but, to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we must ensure that the power does not have unwanted—unwarranted, perhaps—or even undesirable consequences.
The amendment would remove the requirement for there to be both supply, production or use of class A drugs and serious nuisance. The matter was debated at some length in another place. One of the principle concerns—I understand it—was that the existence of "serious nuisance" would be difficult to prove, especially when it was considered that witnesses might be intimidated. We have already taken into account the fact that that can be an issue. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the need, referred to throughout 435 Part 1, for consultation with local authorities. Local authorities, after all, will be able to provide valuable information and background on anti-social behaviour at a property and provide professional witnesses to testify as to the serious nuisance arising from it.
I say that in the knowledge that many noble Lords live not too far from the House and that the difficulties with crack houses, in particular, in some of the inner London boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea have been brought to our attention on many occasions. The view is shared throughout the Committee that it is important that local authorities and the police work closely together. That is our policy intent. We have been impressed by the work done by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in close co-operation with the Metropolitan Police to tackle issues such as the use of crack in that area.
It would not be desirable to allow closure simply on the basis of the use of class A drugs, rather than on the basis of such use and serious nuisance. Some drug users do not pose any great danger to the community and are working gradually to overcome their problems of addiction, with the help of drug agencies. By removing the requirement to prove serious nuisance associated with drug use, we would create the risk that individuals who posed no immediate problem and should rightly be considered to be vulnerable or in treatment could be evicted or denied housing by landlords fearful of the possible consequences. That would make those individuals even more vulnerable and, perhaps, even cause greater harm in the immediate community. It could also create problems for voluntary sector organisations that work with such vulnerable people.
Finally, it is important to point out that the amendment would also create a power to close premises that caused serious nuisance alone. There are other ways of dealing with nuisance—another important point brought out in the debate—not least through many of the other tools included in the Bill. Issuing a closure notice to tackle such problems could, in some circumstances, be disproportionate. We want to use the power proportionately.
I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment, because of the unintended consequences or fall-out.

§ Lord Elton
The Minister said that there were other means of dealing with premises on which serious nuisance occurs. That focuses our attention on paragraph (a) of subsection (1). I share my noble friend's concerns about the matter. Can the Minister tell us, for instance, what powers of closure exist for premises on which class A drugs are produced, without the causing of any other nuisance, or on which they are supplied, without any other nuisance? If there is none, paragraph (b) weakens the weapon that the Minister wishes to put into the hands of the police.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
I want to probe the Minister a little further before he responds. He has not sufficiently answered the question about people who use, supply or even manufacture drugs but do not 436 cause social nuisance. If we confine ourselves to the question of the use of drugs, I acknowledge that, as the Minister said, some people may be trying to get away from the drug habit. I agree that that would be an instance in which one would want to tread cautiously. However, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, paragraph (a) talks about the production and supply of class A drugs. I accept that there are things that can be done under the drug laws, but a person who is trying to withdraw from the drug habit is not likely to be in the business of production and supply. The question requires a little more critical examination.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was concerned about the undesirable consequences for others if one did not link paragraphs (a) and (b). However, as one sees elsewhere in the Bill, they can be dealt with in other ways. We need not concern ourselves about that at this stage.
The Minister should expand on what he said. There is a weakness in what I would call the psychology of the Bill at this point. The wording is perfectly clear, and I have no doubt that those who must administer it will do so well and faithfully. However, whether it will necessarily work in the way in which the Government intend, because of the way in which it is worded, is another matter.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
I understand where noble Lords are coming from on the matter. I made the point that there were other ways of dealing with the problem, the most important being the fact that the police can tackle suppliers. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, offences can be brought to court without the premises necessarily being closed. The housing authority or social housing agency may want to evict tenants who breach their tenancy agreement by letting their premises be used for drug dealing. There are several ways in which the issues can be tackled.
We want to get the power right and use it proportionately. There are several other means of tackling the problem. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton.

§ Lord Elton
I do not think that it does. I asked what powers there were to close premises if they were used for the production or supply—particularly the production—of class A drugs and no other nuisance was committed.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
Short of closures, there are evictions under housing legislation, ASBOs and ABCs. There are restrictions on tenancy rights such as short-hold tenancies. There is also the possible Use of Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 and the forfeiture of property. There are other means by which some of the problems can be tackled.
I understand the concerns, but it is important that we ensure that action short of closure can be taken and that other ways of affecting the use of a property or premises can be used. I have outlined some of those points in my responses.

§ Lord Elton
I am sorry to be tedious on the matter, but we are getting closer to the answer with a steady drift of notes. The Minister said that there was a power of forfeiture of property, but he did not say under which Act. I am not so much bothered about that because he can tell me later which Act, but I want to know whether the property includes premises. The clause appears to be aimed at putting particular premises out of action. Is that because they are noisy or because they are used for drugs? The Minister's first supplementary answer has drawn us to the conclusion that it is because they are used for drugs.
We are now trying to distinguish how this power differs from others and whether it supplies something that is presently lacking. What appears to be lacking is the power to close the premises because they are being used for the production or supply of class A drugs and for no other reason. Does that power exist elsewhere?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
I have tried to establish the fact that there are other means. I take the point that the noble Lord is making. 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.
We believe that we have struck the right balance. While I accept that some of the issues will not entirely satisfy Members opposite, that fact is most important. We do not want unintended consequences to flow from the way in which the power of closure can be used.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
I am not totally convinced by what the Minister has said. If other powers exist and if they could all be used, we would not be introducing this one unless there had been a failure or breakdown in their use. We have not had a sufficient explanation.
However, on this occasion, I shall be kind to the Government and study carefully what the Minister has said. More importantly, I shall look forward to what he is to communicate to us. That may put our minds at rest and, if it does, we may be able to leave the subject. On the basis of what I have heard, I am tempted to take the view of the Committee, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Baroness Walmsley
moved Amendment No. 2A: Page 2, line 2, after second "the" insert "landlord or the freehold The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 2A standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who has been unavoidably detained. This is a probing amendment relating to closure notices. Clause 1(4) provides details of what is contained in such a notice, on whom it must be served and its effect. The amendment seeks to clarify who can go into a property after a closure notice has been served in respect of it.
438 Often, especially in cities, three people are interested in a house or flat: first, the person who habitually lives in it; secondly, the freehold owner; and, thirdly, an intermediate landlord, often with a long lease of 99 years. It is not clear from the clause as drafted whether the real landlord, the person with whom the tenant has a tenancy agreement and day-to-day dealings, will have the right of access to the premises when a closure notice is served. Surely, he or she ought to have that right.
My noble friend Lord Phillips and I are interested in what the Minister has to say. Is he able to clarify the matter? I beg to move.

§ Baroness O'Cathain
For clarification, will the provision also encompass the agent of the landlord? The noble Baroness has given a list of people who have the right to enter a property, but she has omitted the agent of the landlord.

§ Baroness Walmsley
We would like clarification on all those who have a financial interest in the property.

§ Lord Hylton
I support the general thrust of the amendment but from a housing management point of view. We all know that from time to time, or possibly regularly, some flats are used as crack houses or for distributing illegal drugs. It is most desirable that that use should be brought to an end, but one does not want the flat to be unusable for a long period. I hope that the Government have considered that and have in mind ways and means by which residential flats can be returned to that use with the minimum possible delay after the drugs, drug pushers and distributors have been removed.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
I have a charmingly brief note on this amendment and I hope it satisfies the noble Baroness. It states simply that the amendment is unnecessary as the owner is defined for the purposes of Part 1 in Clause 11. My reading of Clause 11 suggests that subsection (10) defines the owner of premises. I hope that that answers the point.

§ Baroness Walmsley
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Phillips will study Clause 11(10) with great interest and return to the matter if he is not satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
moved Amendment No. 3: Page 3, line 3, at end insert "or The noble Lord said: The purposes of the amendments in this group are similar to those we discussed at the beginning of our proceedings. A magistrates' court may make a closure order only if three conditions are satisfied. This series of amendments is designed to probe whether that is appropriate and whether all three factors are essential. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 take away the need for all 439 three conditions to be satisfied. That will streamline proceedings and allow action to be taken more easily in a situation which is fraught with difficulty. Unacceptable behaviour in public is a subjective issue and it is a problem. We therefore thought it would be useful if the Government were to explain why they believe all three conditions must be satisfied. If the Minister will answer that question, it may be that I shall be satisfied. I beg to move.

§ Lord Elton
We discussed this issue in the first group of amendments and I support this amendment for the same reason.

§ The Earl of Listowel
Will the Minister write to me when he writes to noble Lords who have previously spoken? Having listened to the debate, I am concerned about young people who are used to run drugs—13 and 14 year-olds who can make a lot of money that way—and the protections which exist to prevent that.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
This is a probing amendment, but it would undermine the test the court must use to issue a closing order. There are three tests, as the noble Lord said: first, the use, the production and the supply of class A drugs; secondly, the occurrence of disorder and serious nuisance; and, thirdly, the fact that the order is necessary to prevent further disorder. Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 would mean that the order could be issued if any one of those tests were passed. Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 would remove all but the drug-related tests.
We believe that these amendments would remove all the checks and balances created in the power to prevent a repeat of the problem with the extension of Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. We are most focused on that concern. The potential effect could be that a person using Class A drugs could end up being made homeless which would be a far greater penalty than the approach undertaken through the Misuse of Drugs Act, which seeks to impose fines alone for simple possession and to encourage such persons into treatment. Homelessness for possession would cause them harm and cause, as I argued earlier, greater harm within the community. Those are the reasons why we feel that we need to resist the amendment. It is important that those tests are in place and that they are given careful consideration.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
We are back in the business of levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. I hear what the Minister has said; one might easily express a different view and both opinions would be valid. For now I shall accept the opinion of the Government and study it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
moved Amendment No. 7: Page 3, line 7, at end insert— ( ) The making of the order will not seriously diminish the quality of life of any resident of the premises who the court is satisfied was not involved with the unlawful use, production or supply of a Class A controlled drug. 440 The noble Lord said: We now come to a matter on which it may appear that I am switching to the other side of the fence. The great thing about working in Committee is, among other things, being able to test the intellectual integrity and strength of the Government's proposals.
The possible difficulty in closing premises relates to the definition of premises. If a house has multiple occupation, with people occupying individual rooms, and one occupier operates his room as a crack house, are the premises the room, the floor of the building, or the total building? We need to know the answer to that question. If "premises" means the individual's room and that is closed, that would be fine. No innocent third party would be involved and we could he clear that the closure is appropriate. If the floor of the building were to be closed, there might be half a dozen or 10 innocent parties who would be affected by the closure and if the building were closed the effect could be far worse.
There is a more delicate situation than that. What would happen if a person, a member of a family. operates one room of a house as a crack house and is so dominant over the members of the family that they can do nothing about it? The family could be living in a detached house. As the provision is worded it would be appropriate to close the house. One would then have a homeless family whose position would he seriously damaged. There are serious questions about whether, in that kind of circumstance, the closure would be appropriate.
We were moved to table this amendment to try to tease out the answers to those kinds of dilemmas. It is a serious issue because one has to be very sure when dealing with all these cases that one does not fortuitously and by accident seriously upset the lives of totally innocent parties who might otherwise be affected. I hope that the Minister will he able to make the position clearer so that we can be satisfied on that. I beg to move.

§ Baroness Walmsley
I support the amendment, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and myself. I shall return to some of the issues that he raised under some later amendments standing in my name. My main concern under this amendment is children or elderly relatives or even spouses who may be quite innocent and ignorant of what has been going on and probably quite powerless to do anything about it. Clause 1(4)(b) allows access, but it is difficult to see how someone could remain in a property that is under a closure order. An elderly person, who is reliant upon care services, would be deprived of them because those not living in the premises are banned from entering. How could such people manage?
Naturally, those who commit these offences should be dealt with, but if the elderly person is caused to become homeless or to lose essential services, another way should be found to deal with the matter. So far I am not 441 convinced that the Government have addressed how such innocent people should be dealt with. Perhaps the Minister can explain.

§ Lord Avebury
As I understand it, crack dealers often take over the houses of vulnerable people. An elderly person may, for example, live in a flat and be intimidated, threatened and otherwise coerced into allowing the premises to be used for the sale and use of class A drugs. So that elderly person is an involuntary participant in the drugs operation, but the courts may make a closure order against the premises. I see nothing in the Bill that obliges a local authority in a case of that kind to make provision for the rehousing of the elderly person concerned.
There is a gap in the Bill or perhaps there is a provision elsewhere that would require the court to make inquiries into the circumstances of such an elderly person and to make arrangements in advance of the police implementing a closure order so that the person is not thrown out onto the streets. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance on that point before we leave this clause.

§ Lord Elton
The amendment is a kind of monitoring process on Clause 1(2)(a), is it not? I imagine a way round this real difficulty is proper consultation with the local authority. I wondered whether that provision should be made slightly more specific, for the reassurance of the Committee, so that the kind of ills that have been described by my noble friends and others do not occur. Social services must establish who are the potential casualties, must they not, and how such casualties can be avoided?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
This is an interesting debate. In a sense, it is an expansion of the debate we had earlier—it is that debate but the other way around. I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is coming from. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right to express concern because we want to get the matter right.
The legislation itself addresses the issue. Taking up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in regard to Clause 1(2)(a), it is there made plain, that the local authority for the area in which the premises are situated has been consulted". So there will be a process of consultation. That is why the closure notice must contain information on sources of housing and legal advice so that the local authority is fully informed and involved in the decision to seek closure. Earlier I made the point that it is important that local authorities and the police work closely together to deal with exactly such a problem. It is not unknown for dealers to install young children in premises to act as a cover and to make the authorities think twice about taking action. Yes, they are right to make the local authorities think twice about taking action, but in the end action will have to be taken. However, it is important that the welfare of vulnerable members of a household is carefully taken into consideration and arrangements made to provide 442 support and facilities for them, although it is highly desirable to take out of circulation the person causing a nuisance by running a crack house.
One must balance the effects of a closure notice on any resident who is not involved in the use, production or supply of class A drugs, with all the knock-on effects on local residents by allowing the premises to remain open. The power, as drafted, particularly with the important consultation requirement, strikes a sensible balance. Going back to an earlier point, because decisions will be made at senior level after a great deal of discussion between the relevant authorities—in this case the police and. primarily, the local authority or the registered social landlord—the power strikes that balance.
The amendment is defective in that it would place an additional, and probably unwelcome and unnecessary, burden on the police and prevent in most circumstances the effective use of the power. I think the noble Lord will accept that point because it is very hard to make a judgment about quality of life as the amendment is drafted.
So, I understand the spirit and thinking, which have been made plain during the short debate, behind the amendment. However, the balance is about right. The important point of consultation, and the fact that adequate advice and support must be given to the members of a household who are not necessarily involved in the production and supply of class A drugs, will enable the clause to work effectively.

§ Lord Elton
I remember a not famous but very striking occasion when a certain Secretary of State was addressed by an infuriated leader of local authorities. He pointed out that the Secretary of State had the duty to consult. He asked when he was going to consult. The Secretary of State banged the table and said: "I am consulting now. I am telling you what I am going to do". This is an example of the weakness of this kind of language in legislation.
I do not know about my noble friend, but I should he much happier for the local authority to have a duty on the face of the Bill regarding these proceedings and not merely a right to be consulted. That would be a more secure protection of the vulnerable people concerned. The issue obviously needs much more thought than it can be given now. I hope my noble friend and the noble Baroness will leave an opportunity for that thought to be thought.

§ Lord Avebury
I wondered whether the noble Lord in his reply was going to say something about the Homelessness Act. Local authorities have only just been required to submit strategies to the ODPM. The closing date was 30th July. Now they are being faced with an additional cause of homelessness that would not have been taken into account in formulating the strategies. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton. has pointed out, although local authorities have to be consulted in advance of a closure notice, they do not have to do anything about it. So, we expect local authorities to read this clause and to go back to the draftsman of the homelessness strategy and say, "We need to have a 443 quick amendment of our strategy because this matter obviously cannot await the five-year period during which local authorities are allowed to continue with the strategies submitted on July 30th".
Therefore, there is a lacuna here, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, points out. We have not completed the circle. We have said that the local authorities must be told that a closure notice is contemplated and that they have a duty under the Homelessness Act to make sure that someone who is involuntarily dragged into the class A drug operation on the premises is not rendered homeless as a result of non-action by him or herself. We do not close the loop by then placing a duty on local authorities under the Homelessness Act to make sure that this additional potential cause of homelessness has been incorporated into their strategies.

§ Baroness Walmsley
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and my noble friend Lord Avebury. The wording of Clause 1(2)(a) is far too weak and we need provision on the face of the Bill to ensure that the interests of vulnerable people are taken care of.
My noble friend Lord Avebury makes a very good point: we do not want someone being made homeless by this closure notice and then being told that they have made themselves deliberately homeless by the involvement of someone in the household with crack. That would be outrageous. So I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—and perhaps we can negotiate about this—to table a different amendment on Report which the Government might be a little more willing to consider.

§ Lord Hylton
Everything that has been said from both Opposition Benches on these recent amendments reinforces the earlier point that I sought to make about the housing management aspect of this matter. Obviously, drugs, drug dealers and distributors must be dealt with. They must be dealt with quickly and the residential area must be brought back into its proper use as rapidly as possible.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
We have many debates in this Chamber in which we reflect long and hard on the precision of wording. While listening to noble Lords' comments, I have been reading through the relevant paragraphs in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, used the word "told". He said that the local authority had been "told" that a closure notice was going to be made. The provision is not about telling; it is about informing and consulting. The drafting is precise on that point. Clause 1(2)(a) states that, the local authority for the area in which the premises are situation has been consulted". I do not view that as telling but as an active process with partners working together to ensure that there is an understanding of why it is desirable to close those premises and that an order should be sought. Subsection (b) continues that, reasonable steps have been taken to establish the identify of any person who lives on the premises or who has control of or responsibility for an interest in the premises". 444 I believe that that clause gets the tone right.
I also draw the Committee's attention to Clause 2(3) dealing with closure orders. That makes plain that, in the application considered by the magistrates' court, the magistrate must be satisfied that, the making of the order is necessary to prevent the occurrence of such disorder or serious nuisance for the period specified in the order", and that, the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public There are tests that satisfaction must be expressed to meet and match those tests. If the magistrates—

§ Baroness Walmsley
With respect to the Minister, we are not arguing that a closure order may not he necessary but for appropriate and adequate provision for vulnerable people who might be adversely affected by it.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
I fully understand that point. The point I was trying to develop was that in seeking the closure order the officer will understand exactly what the court must look at and will be very mindful of the need to be precise and why that course of action is being taken. I understand the concern for vulnerable people—for people becoming homeless as an unintended consequence. I reflected that concern earlier. With the obligation to consult and the need to ensure that people living in the property are well advised and informed of other means of support, I think that there will be adequate protection against that happening.
If the matter comes before the court the magistrate may take the view that it is not necessary to close the premises but that action should simply be taken against the dealers, so the other people living in those premises can remain. With the detailed work and preparation that will go into these cases before the matter gets to that point, the likelihood of someone being made homeless as a consequence of this approach is extremely unlikely.
I should like to think that most local authorities and social landlords would react and perform in a highly responsible way because they are obliged to do so. Of course I am, as ever, inclined to listen to what is said in the Chamber and if we think there is more precision required in the wording, we shall give the issue further thought. But, as it is, the provision should work well with the commitment to consultation and the other protections.

§ Lord Elton
When the Minister gives the matter that further thought, will he try to discard the optimism with which he is reading the Bill and consider the position of an old biddy living in a house, two-thirds of which have been taken over as a crack house, who must discover that she has the right to lodge an appeal or must seek information about what she should do next? The initiative that will have precipitated that situation will be taken by the state in the form of the 445 police; the state in the form of local authorities should surely have a duty to intervene on her behalf, rather than waiting to be sought out by her.
I know that I am putting the case in rather extreme terms—I can see that from the Minister's face—but he has put his case in extreme terms. I hope that between now and Report we shall find some median way.

§ Baroness Maddock
The Minister has not replied to the valid point made by my noble friend Lord Avebury about the Homelessness Act 2002 and how the work of local authorities under the Act will tie up with the Bill, given that they should already have their strategies in place. The Minister will know that one of my concerns for local authorities is the very different strategies that they are being asked to return. Indeed, I raised that issue when we were discussing the Local Government Act 2000.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
We have had a useful discussion around the amendment. The Minister has made a good attempt—as does the Bill—to deal with the issue, but I am not sure that he has satisfied us all. There is consultation and consultation; and there is action and there is action. The real question, which has not been clearly answered, is whether, if the local authority said, "In our judgment, closure would be so damaging that it should not take place", the police would have to accede to that response to consultation, shall we say, if it is not guidance. There is potential for a hiatus.
I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this discussion; they illustrated better than I could the dilemma that everyone faces. I should correct one thing that the Minister said. He said that the amendment would place an extra burden on the police. In fact, it would be the magistrates who must make the judgment, because the Bill deals with orders before the court. So it would be the magistrates' problem and that, among other things, is what magistrates are for—to make such judgments. We are dealing with a judgment between the criminal problem of drugs, drug abuse and crack houses and the social consequences of dealing with it. Even more than for the local authority, that is a judgment that forms a proper part of the magistrates' function.
As I said, this has been a useful debate. I am sure that we will all study with care what has been said. We will need to consider the matter to decide whether we cannot produce something that is an improvement on both the Bill and the amendment.

§ Lord Avebury
Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, when it comes to redrafting it, will he consider giving magistrates the power to make an order requiring the local authority to rehouse specific persons who are resident in the premises? Then, if a vulnerable old or mentally disabled person is living in the house, the matter will not just be left to the consultation prior to the making of the order; what 446 happens in the court will determine the local authority's responsibility to look after the interests of that person.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but it would be inappropriate to try to negotiate a new amendment on the Floor of the House. I am bound to say in response to him that for some people, the physical act of forced removal from one property to another is in itself a deep problem. As anyone who has had to deal with the closure of old people's homes will know, that can be immensely stressful.
So there are many issues that we must consider. As I said, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate. I think we shall have some fairly heavy discussions, but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
moved Amendment No. 8: Page 3, line 9, leave out "three" and insert "six The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with a simple little matter: for how long closure orders should last and for how long they may be allowed to continue if an extension is granted. There are two ways of looking at that. We had to do something to try to tease out from the Government why they settled on the particular period in the Bill. I have a feeling that a longer period than is suggested in the Bill may well be appropriate.
Curiously enough, properties develop a reputation. Closure must be for long enough for the reputation to be lost. Three months with a three-month extension would not necessarily achieve that. Although it may seem harsh, especially in the light of our preceding debates, if we are to opt for closure, the period should be of greater duration than the Bill provides. My cock-shy is as good as anyone else's. I beg to move.

§ Baroness Walmsley
I fear that we cannot support the amendment. It strikes me that there is a certain inconsistency between the noble Lord's amendments this morning. A couple of minutes ago he was talking about caveats against closure and now he wants places to be closed for twice as long. We do not want an urban desert in which properties are closed and boarded up. That attracts vandalism not just to that property but to others around. I should have thought that three months was quite enough time for the authorities to deal with the matter. In fact, that limit would put pressure on them to do so.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has hit the nail on the head: it is inconsistent. I made a note about properties and reputations. Frankly, if we are obliging the local authority to keep properties empty for longer, the area is sure to gain a reputation. Inevitably, tinned-up properties, as they are often known, look ugly and distasteful and become objects for vandalism. The important thing is to ensure that the problem is dealt 447 with, that the closure order is effective, that the property is brought back into use as soon as possible and that some aura of normality is returned to the area.
The noble Lord said that his add-ons were a cock-shy, as it were. We think that we have the balance about right. It is important that properties are made good use of. It does nothing for the locality to keep them empty longer than necessary, but we recognise the importance of taking action and of that action being visible. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. It would not do many of our neighbourhoods much good if local authorities were obliged to keep premises empty for as long as the amendment provides. That would not help; in fact, in some circumstances it could make the situation worse.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
I am unsurprised by the reaction of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but the position is not really that inconsistent. If we are genuinely arguing that the procedure must be carefully undertaken arid closures made only in appropriate circumstances when they are absolutely necessary, a longer period of closure may not be inappropriate.
I hear what the Minister says. This is another of those areas where it is simply a question of opinion. I should he the first to acknowledge that the Government's opinion is at least as good as mine, although I should not say that it is superior. We are all entitled to our opinion; that is one of the great things that our debates are about. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith moved
Amendment No. 9: Page 3, line 25, leave out subsection (9). The noble Lord said: The amendment is necessary because the subsection that it would remove is an oddity. Subsection (9) states: it is immaterial whether any person has been convicted of an offence relating to the use, production or supply of a controlled drug". Do we normally include immaterial things in the Bill? I find that strange. If it is immaterial, we do not need the phrase. This is one of several points in the Bill where wording is unnecessary or tautologous. The words themselves suggest that they should not be there. I beg to move.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
From the Government's perspective, the amendment reduces the clarity of the clause as drafted. The use of the power to close premises should not depend on criminal proceedings, which may or may not be pursued separately.
The inclusion of subsection (9) in Clause 2 seeks to ensure that no delays are caused in court by any confusion on the issue. The power is, after all, about providing relief to the community suffering nuisance and disorder. It would be undesirable in the extreme for a case to be held up pending the conclusion of 448 separate criminal proceedings. By providing what we see as clarity in the Bill, we simply seek to ensure the effective use of the power.

§ Lord Avebury
I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith. Without the subsection, if someone sought to argue in court that the closure notice ought not to be agreed to because nobody in the premises had been convicted of a drug offence, the court would say that the legislation did not require it to take cognisance of whether someone in the premises had such a conviction. The court would go ahead and make the closure notice on the basis of what is left in the clause. The Minister is wrong and should at least agree to reconsider the matter before Report, with the benefit of advice from the lawyers, and perhaps in discussion with Members of the Opposition party.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
I could not help thinking that some of the Minister's remarks meant that such a conviction was material. The three words at the beginning of the subsection, "It is immaterial", cause the problem. Will the Minister agree to look at that wording? There could be a more appropriate way to express the sentiments and to make the matter clearer. It is not the sort of wording that we should include in the Bill.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
I think it is immaterial. Obviously, at all times we listen to what Members of the Committee say. We will seek another view on the matter. I am satisfied that it is immaterial. It is important that we have that clarity in the Bill to ensure that the power can be used effectively. In the end, we may simply disagree on the point.

§ Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
Before my noble friend sits down, this is a very difficult matter. Do the Government take the view that subsection (9) is necessary so that the person making an argument under subsection (6) can be told that he cannot raise the point?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
It is probably the case that having subsection (9) means that arguments that might otherwise occur do not happen. It obviates the need to get round that. That is why it is immaterial.

§ Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
That is nonsense, is it not?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
I simply disagree with the noble Lord on the point.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
I am grateful for that final intervention. It makes the point that the wording should be looked at. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we will probably have to take another cock-shy at it, at the very least, at a later stage.

§ Lord Avebury
Perhaps I may make a small point about the use of the word "but" in subsection (5). Is it the practice now to begin sentences with prepositions? I have noticed that it has crept into a number of Bills. Is there a style tsar in the office of the parliamentary draftsmen who has now dictated that the ordinary rules of grammar in that respect should be ignored? If we had the answer we could cease talking about the word "but" appearing at the beginning of clauses. Otherwise, I would like some justification for departing from those normal rules of grammar.

§ Lord Elton
Does the Minister agree that legislation, like speeches, should consist only of the minimum necessary number of words to make the point?

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
I am inclined to agree. On the use of the word "but" in subsection (5), I am afraid that I am not a particularly good grammarian. My education does not extend that far. There is probably a style guru for drafting legislation. If there is, we have not met, but I may ask the question.

§ Baroness Walmsley
moved Amendment No. 10: Page 3, line 33, at end insert "except in relation to a child under 16 years of age The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. This group of amendments deals with our obligation under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for young people to be treated differently from adults by the criminal justice system—if they must get involved with it at all.
Amendment No. 10 refers to Clause 3(3), which allows reasonable force to be used. I tabled this probing amendment to ask the Government to clarify the situation about force if a child should be in the premises, or even if a child should resist forcible entry. It does not seem right that any force should be used against a child, although I understand that the clause refers to the enforcement of a closure order on a building, not a person. However, people get involved in these things.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 refer to Clause 4, where the offences and penalties for contravention of a closure order are detailed. Here I do not believe that either a custodial sentence or a fine is appropriate for someone under 18 for such an offence. We are not talking about offences of actually dealing with crack cocaine, but about remaining in or entering premises under a closure order—something much less serious.
Young people do not respond well to custodial sentences. If we really want to turn round their lives and prevent them reoffending, sending them to gaol for six months for such an act is not a positive way to deal with it, and neither is a fine. If it is appropriate to 450 the income of a young person, as it should he, it will be very small and therefore ineffective as a deterrent. Under-18s have low incomes or none and are not eligible for benefits. Perhaps the parents would pay the fine to get the child off the hook and the child would get away scot-free and learn no lesson at all. However, a useful community sentence where they make a contribution to society could have a salutary effect on their understanding of what they have done and keep them out of prison or young offenders' institutions, which I believe is always desirable. I beg to move.

§ Lord Elton
I am glad that the first of the three amendments, at least, is only a probing one, bearing in mind the number of six-feet-plus 16 year-olds I have met, some of whom have been violent. I cannot see how those duties could be conducted without the use of suitable restraining force on such people, particularly when excited by drugs.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I understand the sentiments of both the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, because they are both talking about a proportionate response. I, like the noble Lord, know a particular 13 year-old who is six feet one inch tall and whose father is six feet eight inches tall, so perhaps that is not unusual.
There will be a need to behave proportionately. That is why "reasonable force" is included in the Bill. Of course, the amount of force that would be reasonable to use in relation to a small child of tender years with very little strength and a great big hulking teenager bordering on 16, who may be obstreperous and difficult, would be very different. The noble Baroness will know that if one simply lifts a child in one's arms, that could be construed as using force to remove the child from the position.
The clause is drafted to ensure that constables exercising this power will do so reasonably and proportionately in relation to the circumstances that prevail at the time, which will vary, as noble Lords will know. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness.
On the second point in relation to community service, the noble Baroness is quite right: a community service order may often be appropriate. However, that may not always be the case, bearing in mind the activity participated in by the child. It may well be right that a small fine represents the extent of the culpability that prevailed on that occasion. The noble Baroness will also know that we are trying to give the sentencer a broader range of tools to use in an appropriate way in each individual case. When the Bill mentions six months' imprisonment, that is the maximum that may be imposed by the court. It is not a suggested mandatory sentence. I would be very surprised indeed if the maximum sentence were used often, if ever, but it is a parameter beyond which a sentencer cannot go.
We believe that it would be quite improper to tie the hands of the sentencer, who may wish to put together any combination of tools to meet the particular child's needs. It may be that the child would benefit from 451 some sort of counselling or that a therapy order would be appropriate. Therefore, although I understand why the noble Baroness alights upon community service as an appropriate way of dealing with many of these cases, it will not be the only way. I hope that she will agree, therefore, that it would be quite wrong to tie the hands of the sentencer in such a way.

§ Lord Elton
I am sure that I must be being stupid or that I have missed a bit of the Bill, but there appear to be only two alternative sentences available, and community service is not one of them.

§ Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
I am puzzled by my noble friend the Minister's response to this extraordinarily reasonable amendment. To put it generally, we have had the same sort of response from the Government on other Bills week after week. They say, "We must have this power or sentence in the Bill. Of course, we hope it will not be used; we hope something else will happen". If the Government believe that we should presume under-16s will not be sent to prison, why not put that in the Bill? After all, there must be more intelligent ways of dealing with them, however tall they are—I had not realised that height was a factor in sentencing policy to the extent thought by some noble Lords. Why not include in the Bill a presumption or statement that, in cases involving merely attending on the premises, we would not expect a custodial sentence?
We are constantly having debates on Bills when Ministers say, "It is not our intention that this should happen". I am sure that my noble friend will be aware of a very important decision in your Lordships' Appellate Committee on 10th July—Wilson v the Secretary of State for the DTI—in which the noble and learned Law Lords unanimously, one after another, restated that the intentions of Ministers are not law and are not to he taken into account in interpretation. What the Act says is what the courts will look at. I have summarised the judgment, but I am perfectly ready to cite the passages because I have them upstairs, although I am sure that my noble friend will be aware of that constitutionally important judgment.
One begins to worry about the attitude of our policy-makers to teenagers. We are going to lock them up for heavy petting and, although we hope we do not have to, if necessary, we will also lock them up for being on premises. I do not think that that is a very intelligent penal policy. My noble friend the Minister has made a much better case than her predecessors for what I call the "must have it but we don't intend to use it" policy. I appreciate that one will have to read the detail, but will she agree to look at the matter again?

§ Baroness Thornton
I humbly suggest to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton that he read the Second Reading debate on this Bill. Many of the issues that he has expressed concern about were fully explored by noble Lords and the Front Bench. I am sure that many of his concerns and worries would be allayed if he took the time to read that debate carefully.

§ Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Thornton. I have read the 452 debate. I was not present because I was under voluntary detention in a medical institution. I appreciate her point, which I greatly value, but I still maintain the points that I put to my noble friend the Minister.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
First, it is not necessary to include community sentences in the Bill because they are generally available. If the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, would be kind enough to look at the scale of fines, he would see that it varies. The importance of checking those scales is to make it clear to sentencers that there is a maximum fine above which they cannot go. That is why there is a maximum length of imprisonment and fine. Those are the two areas that will determine how the courts deal with sentences. The other means of disposal will indeed be available.

§ Lord Elton
I think that the Minister said that community service would be available under other provisions. However, we are dealing with a case brought under this Act—as it will be—are we not? If the case is brought under this part of the Bill to the court, as I read it, the court has only two alternatives other than discharge—imprisonment or a fine.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
That is not how we understand the Bill, although I will certainly look at this point again. I understand that the reason the maximum is expressed in this way is, as I have just indicated, to set the limits in relation to fines and imprisonment. Noble Lords will know that in relation to those matters there can be a very wide spectrum, so it is absolutely necessary to make it clear to sentencers that six months' imprisonment or the maximum fine is there.
Noble Lords will also know that the Criminal Justice Bill deals with criminal offences up to a maximum of six months or otherwise. It also deals with the alternatives to prison or fines available to the courts when they are dealing with types of offence that fall within that bracket. Those powers of disposal will be imported by the sentencers' ability to deal with an alternative to six months' imprisonment.

§ Baroness Sharp of Guildford
Given the wording of the Bill, will the court be given any discretion in these cases? The wording implies that on summary conviction there shall be either: imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or … a fine not exceeding level 5 … or … both". It does not imply that there is any discretion in the hands of the court.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
If the noble Baroness will be kind enough to compare the way in which sentences are generally expressed—this comes back to the way in which draftsmen draft maximum sentences—she will see that this complies with the common practice. So if the position were as she has outlined, it would mean that the maximum sentence would have to be imposed in every case where a maximum sentence of 30 years or 25 years had been 453 provided. We know that that is not how it works. The provision merely sets the outer limit of what the court can do on a given occasion. Obviously I understand the noble Baroness's anxiety, but I think that I can reassure her. I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who sits behind her, is anxious similarly to reassure her that my comments are sound.

§ Lord Phillips of Sudbury
How right the noble Baroness is—but she would not expect me to say just that. We live in terror of and amazement at the parliamentary draftsmen. However, surely our job is to make the legislation as comprehensible as possible to the general public and not merely clear to the experts in legal drafting. The Minister will want to consider one point. One could very simply say, "without prejudice to other sentences", or—to put it more clearly—"the maximum that shall be available with regard to a sentence of imprisonment", or "the maximum with regard to a fine shall be". As it stands, unless one were learned in the subject, one would think that that is what the law is providing and nothing else.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
The difficulty is that, as virtually every piece of legislation currently adopted or adopted for a considerable time shows, that is the drafting style. It provides for, a period not exceeding six months". That obviously encompasses the thought and the reality that one could impose a sentence of less than six months. It is simply the way in which it is phrased.

§ Lord Phillips of Sudbury
The noble Baroness is a hold and legal Minister. I am simply saying that although this is absolutely correctly the tradition, it is a tradition that could well be changed for the benefit of the public.

§ Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
Before my noble friend responds, I think that she has now done damage to the massive forensic skill which, as usual, she exhibited in reducing the differences between all of us to a very small canvas. Now she throws in the whole tradition and style of the draftsmen. With the greatest respect to parliamentary draftsmen—which indeed I have—the parliamentary draftsman does not control Bills. Parliamentary draftsmen are there to give us the way in which to enact legislation. If he can do so only by reference, as my noble friend said in her last answer, I suggest that he should be asked to look at it again. If we mean maxima, why not say so? If we mean a presumption that these sentences will not apply, why do we say that someone staying on premises is liable to imprisonment or a fine at the levels, as my noble friend rightly said, or both? It is not just a question of style; it is a question of putting one's intentions into the law.

§ Lord Elton
To return to my point, I am not concerned with maxima; all that seems to me to read perfectly clearly. What I am concerned with is that I would expect there to be a paragraph (c) which states, "or sentenced to community service". The noble 454 Baroness said that that is not necessary because courts, as I now understand, have unlimited powers when dealing with certain sorts of offence which are generally described and not particularly listed of' applying all these recourses, unless they are limited in the statute under which the matter is brought to the court. That is certainly something that I was not aware of before. It is quite good to have people who are not lawyers discussing the law, because it is mostly people who are not lawyers who are affected by the law. I would strongly suggest that a paragraph (c) should be inserted for that purpose. I hope that, at Report stage, we shall convince the Government that it should be so.

§ Baroness Walmsley
I thank the noble Baroness for her attempts to set our minds at rest. I am afraid that she has not succeeded. I also thank other noble Lords who supported my case, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn.
On Amendment No. 10. I thank the noble Baroness for her reassurances about what reasonable force means in relation to children. I wonder if she can tell us whether there will be guidance about that for the officers in question. On Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, the Minister says that this is just a range of sentences. My concern is that if we give sentencers a range of sentences, eventually they will use it. A six-month custodial sentence for a young person committing the crime of simply being somewhere is disproportionate. The law should impose penalties which are proportionate to the crime; but this does not.
As for the argument about whether this is the whole range of sentences available or whether we can have community sentences, what we are concerned about is that the Bill says, "either (a) or (b)". It does not say that it is the maximum or the only set of responses. We must not be slaves to the parliamentary draftsmen. We are supposed to be law makers in this place, and it is their job to enable us to put into the penal code what it is that Parliament decides to do. As we develop other types of sentence such as restorative justice, community sentences and who knows what in future, how many hundred years will it take parliamentary draftsmen to catch up in terms of wording legislation?
I suspect that the reason why the Government want to have this sort of provision in the Bill is that it sounds like being tough on crime. That is a very easy way of not dealing with the problem. We need to be effective on crime. Banging up a young person for six months for being in some premises is not an effective way of dealing with crime. Although I am sure that we will come back to it, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
moved Amendment No. 16: Page 5, line 25, at end insert— but failure to effect service shall not invalidate the proceedings and shall not prevent a hearing taking place The noble Lord said: Clause 5 deals with both extension and discharge of a closure order. I must admit that the clause itself causes me a bit of confusion, but perhaps I should deal with my Amendment No. 16 before I come to my complaint about the clause. Both of these actions can take place if, under subsection (9), a summons is issued in accordance with subsection (3) or (7)"— one for extension and the other for extinguishment— a notice stating the date, time and place at which the complaint will be heard must he served on—

(a) the persons to whom the summons is directed …

(b) the persons mentioned in subsection (6)(c) and (d)…

(c) such constable as the justice thinks appropriate (unless he is the complainant);

(d) the local authority (unless they are the complainant)".

The question is whether the proceedings would he valid if any of those people did not actually receive the summons. There may be occasions when the proceedings should go ahead as a matter of urgency, particularly in an instance of an application for extension. It would be in the interests of someone who might be summonsed to be, shall we say, obscurely hidden away somewhere so that the summons could not arise so that the hearing could not take place. We tabled the amendment, which I believe is reasonable, in order to explore that little issue. Obviously, every effort should be made to ensure that everyone affected should receive a summons and know what is taking place. I am not sure that it should necessarily invalidate the proceedings if they have not been so served with the summons, particularly if they might be suspected of deliberately avoiding receiving it.
I find the clause rather difficult. A person who wishes to extend a closure order must complain to the court. That is fair enough. I understand that complaint in this instance must be a legal term. It becomes more odd if a person wishes to apply to have an order extinguished—complaint still has to be made to the court. The same terminology is used. In complaining to the court, one is, in effect, complaining about the complainant—that is why I am complaining about the whole lot.
This is merely a drafting peccadillo. In one sense, I can understand why the two processes are in the same clause. But, for the sake of clarity, it would have been preferable for the Bill to be drafted so that one clause dealt with extension of a closure order and a second clause dealt with discharge of a closure order. Then I should have nothing about which to complain. The amendment has a serious point, as does my complaint about the clause. I beg to move.

§ Lord Phillips of Sudbury
As one who, in his early life, had to serve lots of summonses on lots of people, I perhaps got a fellow feeling for at least part of the sentiment underlying the amendment. In passing this legislation, we do not want to lumber the police and 456 courts generally with a set of formal requirements that are formidably impractical on occasion. Although I do not sign up wholly to the wording of Amendment No. 16, there are issues to be considered. The amendment would add a provision to Clause 5(9), which lists those who must be served with a summons deriving from the clause. Included are persons mentioned in subsection (6)(d). Subsection (6) states: Any of the following persons may make a complaint to an appropriate justice of the peace", including, in subsection (6)(d), a person who has an interest in the closed premises". That phrase, an interest in the … premises", crops up in several places; namely, Clause 1(2)(b) and Clause 2(6)(c). The Ministers' officials have helped me inform the House that there is no definition of the phrase, has an interest in the closed premises". Reasonably, they say that that gives flexibility so that, according to particular circumstances, one will not get trapped by a tight definition.
On the other hand, as regards the practical issue of who is to be served, one's mind must be made up as to who are persons who may "have an interest in the premises", especially where the provisions state that those would be persons interested who were not served originally. That is a formidable impediment to the practical application of this subsection. There may be an explanation that I have not foreseen. If there k not, I commend to the Minister that we review that. The last thing that we want is to legislate a set of so-called protections for the public that are unworkable.

§ Lord Elton
Perhaps I may raise a point which perhaps I ought to have asked as regards Clause I, but it is relevant here. There is a similarly formidable list of places where notices of intention have to be affixed and served in Clause 1. I wonder whether a failure to meet any of those five requirements would render further proceedings invalid.

§ Lord Avebury
Could the Minister tell us whether a person who was formerly a lodger in a premises would be taken to have had an interest in the premises? Obviously he does not have a pecuniary interest, but he was living there. He has an interest—in the ordinary English use of the word—because, presumably, he was forced to look for somewhere else to live at the time when the closure notice was made. He might wish to return. Is he one of the recipients on whom the notice has to be served? Will that not create rather a lot of difficulties?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I believe that I shall be able to explain how we think this will work to the satisfaction of all Members of the Committee. Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, first, I understand that he has an anxiety about whether these cases would be defeated for non-service. The noble Lord will know that, in the ordinary way, service of summonses will 457 usually be effected by post. Personal service of the summons is not required. If the parties then choose not to attend any hearing, that will not prevent or invalidate the proceedings. However, I thank the noble Lord for raising the point because I know that it is one that might have caused others some difficulty. From what the noble Lord says, I know that he accepts it is right and proper that any person who may have a proper interest should be notified about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury is right to say that we have left the phrase "interest in" in order to have a certain amount of flexibility. The noble Lord will know that there are various different forms of tenure; namely, local authority, owner occupier, registered social landlord, and so forth. Therefore, it would be wrong simply to list all those just in case one, by some misadventure, missed off someone who had a proper interest.
We hope to confirm the range of those who should be included in appropriate guidance. The only reason for not defining it in the Bill is to give the greatest breadth. Noble Lords will know, having gone with me through the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, that there is to be a new tenure introduced of commonhold tenancies. If we were to make the list now they may or may not be included, and there may be further changes. This is a way of appropriately dealing with that.
We touched on this earlier. I should like to remind your Lordships that before a closure order is made pursuant to Clause 1(2)(b), reasonable steps have been taken to establish the identity of any person who lives on the premises or who has control of or responsibility for or an interest in the premises". That is when the original order is made. Therefore, in relation to each premises, before the original order is made there should be clarity as to who has, or had, interest in the property.
I turn now to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The aim of Clause 1(6) is to ensure that those resident in a property arc aware of the action being taken against the property. That is not unreasonable and it is perfectly proper.

§ Lord Elton
I am grateful for that. My concern about this clause, which I believe is analogous to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is whether failure in one of the five requirements would invalidate proceedings at the stage which we are now discussing. Would it be valid grounds for objection? In other words, a notice had not been fixed to the coal-house door, as it were.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, it would not invalidate the proceedings in relation to those who were not so affected, but obviously if action is to be taken against a party with an interest, appropriate notice should have been served on them. It will be incumbent on those serving the notice to ascertain all persons with a proper interest. In relation to those so served, the proceedings would be affected, although it would not invalidate the whole procedure. Obviously 458 if someone claims that they had an interest which was not properly taken into account, then perhaps there would be an argument that the notice was not valid because their interest was not properly considered. However, I shall clarify the specific position and write to the noble Lord.
As regards the position of a lodger. the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will know that lodgers are in a slightly more insecure position because they have no security of tenure.
Perhaps I may return to our original debate. I do so because much concern was expressed about who has a proper interest and what the court should do. Not only is it incumbent on those seeking a closure order to ascertain whether such an order is the most appropriate action to take in the circumstances to cure the ill we are discussing, they must also make it absolutely clear who has an interest in the property.
My noble friend Lord Bassam referred noble Lords to Clause 2 dealing with the position of the courts because the court must decide whether the making of an order is reasonable. I shall take the example cited by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, of the little old lady being terrorised by a thug who has taken over the property. It would be perfectly possible for the court to say that under the particular circumstances there should not be a closure order. Those circumstances are that the police have arrested the said thug for the misuse and supply of illicit drugs pursuant to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and are minded to oppose bail; the magistrate would also be minded to agree to oppose bail. So out goes the nasty thug and in remains the little old lady, warm and cosy in her flat, now relieved of the burden of the property being run as a crack house. All parties are now happy.
It is not that such orders must be made, but the court will have the opportunity to decide whether it is reasonable to do so. That is why my noble friend Lord Bassam invited noble Lords to look at what is provided in Clause 2(3). The court has to be satisfied that,
"(a) the premises in respect of which the closure notice was issued have been used in connection with the unlawful use, production or supply of a Class A controlled drug;

(b) the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder …

(c) the making of the order is necessary to prevent the occurrence of such disorder or serious nuisance for the period specified".
As I have said, it would be perfectly possible for the court to decide that the circumstances of paragraphs (a) and (b) are proven, but in the particular circumstances of the little old lady, it is not necessary to make a closure order to prevent the occurrence of such disorder because it is possible simply to arrest the thug and relieve the little old lady of the imposition that has been put upon her.

§ Lord Elton
I thank the noble Baroness for trying to allay the earlier concerns expressed by myself and other noble Lords about the little old lady and the social services, but what she is saying is that, in fact, very often—or at least on some occasions—the court may suggest to the police a different course of action from that 459 of closure, but the Bill has to provide for those cases when the court agrees that closure is necessary and, regrettably, the little old lady is involved. Our concern was for that circumstance.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I see the point, but this anti-social behaviour order is being crafted so as almost to oblige the various services to work in partnership and in concert with each other. Such issues will have to be addressed before the court would be minded to make an order.
I shall conclude by dealing with the example of the lodger. Of course I shall reflect on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and, if necessary, write further to him. The lodger does not have security of tenure. At the point at which the first closure order is made, the lodger may or may not be a person with an interest, but it is likely that once the closure order had been made and the property closed, the lodger would no longer be in residence and thus would no longer have a right to be there. It may be that therefore the lodger would no longer be a person with an interest.

§ Lord Avebury
Would the noble Baroness be kind enough to broaden her response to my question to include licensees in general? There may be others on the premises who are not parties to tenancy agreements, leasehold or freehold, or to the new forms of tenure she mentioned earlier. Such people may simply have been allowed by the freeholder to reside in the premises perhaps for an extended period even though they may well have no tenancy rights at all. Nevertheless, the particular premises would have been their home.

§ Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful for the response from the noble Baroness and I hesitate to raise points of detail. However, this is the only chance we have to do so, although there will be an opportunity for reflection. In her response the noble Baroness said that, in order to serve a closure notice, it will be necessary to establish who has an interest in the premises. That is quite right, but the language of Clause I merely refers to the authorising officer being satisfied that "reasonable steps" had been taken to find out who has an interest in the premises. That offers a certain latitude.
I do not think that a similar latitude has been imported into Clause 5. Subsection (9), which would be amended by Amendment No. 16, is set out in categorical terms. It states that a summons must be served on a person who has "an interest" in the closed premises, and goes on to specify that it should also be served on someone on whom the closure notice was not served. The noble Baroness will see my point: you give your best shot at finding out who has an interest in the property and serve on them, but the subsection states that even if those best endeavours have not found all those with an interest, those people who have not been discovered are still entitled to be served.
As an old-established practising hack solicitor, I see here the makings of a lawyers' field day. The Government should reflect on whether, despite the 460 danger of exhaustive definition—I take the point made by the noble Baroness—it might make sense in this case to consider the severe practicalities and perhaps seek to define what is meant by "having an interest" in this clause.

§ Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
I wonder whether it is convenient for me to add a question set out in two parts which is relevant to those remarks. Surely nothing set out in Clauses 1 or 2 would limit the operation of Clause 5(9), especially as regards its interplay with subsection (6). I appreciate the points made by my noble friend, but surely the fact that a notice must be served is still valid and needs to be looked at. I say that because, as usual, the range of actors in the drama, as it were, does not exhaust the possibilities.
Little old ladies and lodgers are two cases, but what about deserted wives? Modern jurisprudence gives them types of interest. Are they to be included on the list? Must inquiries be made into the family and connubial history of all those who have resided or currently reside in the premises?
Perhaps this is not relevant to the amendment, but since we are discussing the Bill in Committee, I refer to the point that surely in more general terms something should be set out about what is meant by an "interest" here, otherwise one will be inviting litigation.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I can reassure my noble friend by referring to what I said earlier about the guidance to be issued in relation to this matter.
I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, in particular in regard to those of us who have had the joy of practising in these areas. The noble Lord will know that you may take reasonable care to gather-in everyone who has an interest when you take your first step but, once you have made an order closing a property, anyone who has an interest whom you have somehow failed to discover will usually turn up fairly quickly thereafter to let you know all about it. It is therefore perfectly fair and reasonable that the question of extension is put more in a mandatory term for those who have an interest because, by the end of the three-month period, anyone who has an active interest in the property is likely to have appeared, and they must be first.
I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with that explanation. I should say that what was noted in my speaking notes to be a short, brisk issue has taken 23 minutes to dispose of.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
We are not quite finished yet, I am afraid. The noble Baroness has not dealt with my secondary complaint that the Bill deals, in similar terminology, with both extension and discharge in one clause. I inquired whether the Government might consider it better, for the sake of clarity, to separate the two issues. In general, I am not in favour of adding words to a Bill. However, as the Bill is presently worded, it needs reading with considerable care 461 otherwise you will end up in a state of confusion. I certainly did on the first two or three occasions on which I read it and I felt moved to complain about it.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I empathise with the noble Lord but I did not share that disability. But then, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, would say, we lawyers are extremely peculiar.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
I am tongue-tied at such a confession. However, returning to the substance of the amendment, I, too, am somewhat surprised that it should have provoked such an intense debate. It has been helpful. I shall certainly not attempt to sum up the debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. We shall need to think with some care about the wording of the clause at later stages of the Bill. Trying to do so in Committee is not a useful way of spending time and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Lord Hylton
Subsection (10) appears to be a statement of the blindingly obvious. Perhaps the noble Baroness will care to reflect on whether it is really necessary.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I am certainly happy to reflect. Whether my reflections will result in any change, I cannot promise the noble Lord.

§ Baroness Walmsley
moved Amendment No. 17: Page 6, line 31, leave out subsection (4). The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 17, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 to 21, which are grouped with it.
Amendment No. 17 has been tabled in order to tease out what Clause 8(4) really means. It looks to me like a whole lot of buck passing. If the police authority wants an order it must serve it on the local authority, and if the local authority wants an order it must serve it on the police authority, and, in any case, it must be served on the owner of the premises. What happens if the owner is in Australia and knows nothing about what is going on?
The point is relevant also to Amendment No. 19, which relates to Clause 10. This clause allows an owner to claim compensation for loss. But he has to satisfy a number of requirements, one of which is that he took reasonable steps to prevent use. This presumes that the owner was aware of the use. It is perfectly possible that the owner had no idea of the use to which the premises were being put, especially if he lives overseas. It would be much fairer if the requirement to take reasonable 462 steps was coupled with knowledge of the use being made of the property. That is what Amendment No. 19 seeks to do.
Amendment No. 18, which is tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and myself, seeks to insert the word "negligent" into Clause 9 so as to avoid exempting police officers for liability for damage caused through negligence. Naturally there is likely to be damage done when entering property and it is right that individual officers are exempt from damages when acting in accordance with their duty and their orders. However, where there is negligence while performing a public duty is another matter. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will have more to say about the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are probing amendments to give the Government the opportunity to clarify for the Committee what happens to the common areas in a property in multiple occupancy. It is also not clear how subsection (10) would apply to a property of a local authority, such as a leisure centre or a youth club. Can the Minister clarify this? I beg to move.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
My name is attached to Amendment No. 18. I hope that the noble Baroness will not be disappointed if I do not add very much to what she said. The question of negligence should be included at this point. I am all for giving immunity to people acting in the line of duty when occasionally things go wrong, but the community, through those who give the orders, has some responsibility in certain circumstances. That is the reason for the amendment.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I hope that I shall be able to assist in this matter. As to Amendment No. 17, the whole point of the clause being so phrased is to ensure that there is not a multiplicity of claims in relation to costs and that each of the parties who may have an interest know what the others are doing.
Amendment No. 17 would have the effect that the police, the local authority and the owners of premises would receive no notice of, or information about, applications for the recovery of costs. If a claim for costs is made, for example, by the police, it is only right that the local authority and the owner should be informed so that they can make appropriate representations to the court and would avoid the possibility of multiple applications for costs being made. So everyone will know what is going to happen.
Amendment No. 18, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has also attached his name, concerns the exemption of the police from claims for damages arising from the pursuit of their duty. We have put into the Bill provisions similar to those in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The terms of the clause mirror those that apply to the closure of licensed premises in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. That Act appears to have worked well. It appears to strike the right balance and we see no need to depart from it. It is a well understood, well appreciated principle. The police appear to have acted with perfect propriety in the discharge of their duties and the courts 463 have been able to deal with the circumstances where that has not been the case. I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be reassured by the fact that we are not doing anything new.
The effect of Amendment No. 19 would be to include a requirement that the owner of the premises must have had knowledge of the use of the premises before being eligible for compensation. We have considered the matter carefully and we do not believe that this would be desirable. The clause as drafted already provides that compensation will be available in appropriate cases.
The noble Baroness is aware that one of the difficulties that we have concerns owners of properties who have abandoned them and do not take any interest in them at all. It would be unfortunate if owners who fell within that category and had been quite neglectful could subsequently say they should be compensated. The provision is carefully drafted; we think that the appropriate cases could be compensated as the Bill stands.
We have considered Amendment No. 20 and believe it to be unnecessary. We have attempted to ensure, within the power, that where there is a need for access to a public space or, indeed, another premises, that will not be affected by the closure order. It has been left at the discretion of the courts to order access. In Clause 2(8) and Clause 7 there is scope to exclude common areas from the scope of the notice where, for example, access is required. A blanket exemption from such spaces is, however, undesirable, as in some cases, in order to provide the necessary relief for the community, communal areas will need to be closed. That is the balance we have tried to strike.
As the noble Baroness indicated, Amendment No. 21 would remove the definition of an owner of premises from this part of the Bill. The definition is essential to the proper operation of Part 1 as it defines who is liable for damages, compensation, to access the premises and has the ability to appeal to the courts. The definition here includes the landlord where there is a lease of over three years and the freeholder in all other cases. I hope that with those explanations, noble Lords would feel content, and that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would not seek to press their amendments beyond today.

§ Baroness Walmsley
I thank the Minister for her answer. On Amendment No. 18, is she saying that where there has been negligence in the performance of a police officer's duty, the courts have already found that they have sufficient powers to deal with it? That is what I assume she meant and that therefore the word "negligent" is unnecessary.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
Negligence is not currently included in the way in which the courts have addressed this. They have accepted that where an officer behaves with propriety, those acts should not be capable of damages or complaint. The more restrictive framework that we have here has seemed to suffice. The noble Baroness is right that public 464 authority and public servants should make every effort to behave with propriety and do as little damage as they can.
Negligence is a very wide concept. It would be very difficult in relation to these matters because we would not want unnecessary complaints being made by people who say, "This was not a necessary damage; you could have done it another way, and because of this you have been negligent". In addition, we do not want the police to be so anxious about the improper use of the broad issue of what is reasonable and what is negligent that they do not use this power for fear of claims being made against them.
The current rules appear to constrain behaviour so that propriety is adopted but do not allow those who wish to take adventitious advantage improperly of an opportunity to say that the police had been negligent to do so. We think that these provisions suffice to do the sort of things I am sure the noble Baroness would wish to be done, but it does not fall within the negligence issue.

§ Baroness Walmsley
I thank the Minister for her reply. I am very sympathetic to the practical application of what she has said about police officers in the operation of their duty. However, I am still not clear about something, and perhaps she could write to me to save time. What would happen if there was clear negligence? She does not appear to have answered that question.
On Amendment No. 19 and the issue of the absent landlord, I have some sympathy with what the Minister said. However, this is meant to be a piece of legislation that lays down under what circumstances people can claim compensation; it is not meant to be a judgment on how good a landlord somebody is We all have an abhorrence of what negligent landlords do but that is not what the Bill is intended to address. Therefore, I still think it is a little unreasonable. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Lord Avebury
In Clause 8, as in Clauses 2 and 5, we find a sentence beginning with the preposition "but". I know I have already raised this, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, replied that he was not aware of any rule of grammar which prescribes that one should not begin a sentence with a preposition. The noble Baroness, having left school far more recently than her noble friend, may be able to remind us that such a rule exists. If I am correct in this, I think Parliament is setting a very bad example to our young people in the use of the English language when we contradict what they are told by their teachers.
I hope the noble Baroness will treat this with slightly less jocularity than her noble friend did and provide an explanation of why the style tsars or gurus in the 465 parliamentary draftsman's office have introduced this pernicious practice and whether it can be made to cease. In all three instances, if the word "but" was left out from the beginning of the paragraph, I am sure it would not alter the meaning.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I confess that I, too, have a difficulty in relation to the grammatical correctness of some of the provisions. I cannot say that my voice will have any influence, but I can certainly make the inquiry the noble Lord seeks. Whether the answer we receive will satisfy him I cannot say.

§ Lord Bridges
Perhaps I may offer a possible explanation to the noble Baroness. It seems to me that the use of conjunctions, as in this case, derives mainly from those who were subjected to tuition in classical languages. We were taught at school that there had to be a conjunction to relate one sentence to another. The Latin word most commonly used was tamen. But I agree with those who criticise this; if one eliminates all conjunctions from a piece of prose, it is generally improved. It was my practice, as an employee of the government, to do that.

§ Baroness Walmsley
Perhaps I may suggest the establishment of a new all-party group for the correct use of the preposition.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
I was minded to object to this clause on compensation because I was not completely clear as to who is entitled to compensation or in what circumstances. The clause states: This section applies to any person who incurs financial loss in consequence of— (a) the issue of a closure notice". The issue of a closure notice, apart from the fact that it is an executive action on the part of the police and the authorities, does not actually do anything. There is no action, so I do not see how somebody who receives a closure notice might be entitled to compensation. That is my first worry.
Subsection (3) states: An application under this section must not be entertained unless it is made not later than the end of the period of three months starting with whichever is the later of— (a) the day the court decides not to make a closure order". If a court decides not to make a closure order, I do not see how anyone can be entitled to compensation, because nothing will happen. We are suffering from a little bit of lax drafting; the matter has not been sufficiently thought through.
466 We have dealt with the issue of negligence already, but we should be concerned that we do not appear to hold out the possibility that compensation might be available in circumstances in which, as far as I can see, there is no reason for compensation to be available. I do not have too much difficulty with someone who might be affected once a closure order is made and property has been closed up. It is conceivable that an innocent landlord—he would have had to be unaware that the offence was being committed—who is dependent on his rent income to live on, might be entitled to compensation. That is reasonable. However, I do not see how anyone can be entitled to compensation before a court actually makes an order and something is done. I believe that we should explore what the clause means.

§ Lord Hylton
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has raised a point about any person incurring financial loss as a result of a closure notice. It occurs to me that issuing a notice might affect a shop or other commercial activity immediately adjoining, or on the other side of an alleyway, or something of that kind. That might explain part of the clause.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I am happy to make this part of the Bill clearer.
The clause relates to compensation claims of those who claim financial loss—a direct loss of income—in consequence of a closure notice or order. That matter would have to be proved on an evidential basis. In some cases, an owner may have taken all possible steps to control the behaviour of those on or in the premises, but have been entirely unsuccessful. For these cases, we have given the court the discretion to award compensation for loss of rental income or damage caused during the closure period.
I should like to make it clear that compensation is restricted to financial loss—the direct loss of income—to those innocent of all involvement, and does not allow for any other types of compensation. That certainly does not mean that compensation will be available where landlords have failed to take responsibility for their property. We are clear that owners should do absolutely everything possible to ensure that their property does not become a source of nuisance or disorder through the production, use or supply of drugs. We have framed the ability of owners to gain compensation with that in mind.
There will be no benefit to those who turn a blind eye to dealing, or profit from it. That should be a clear message. The clause ensures that that should not happen, and we want to be certain that it is not open to misuse. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. It would appear very unjust, especially to those in the community who have been subjected to what sometimes feels like mayhem, that owners who have done nothing to control it but have simply taken the money—sometimes considerable sums of money for the use of the properties—should have that ability.
467 In reference to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, shops might suffer loss as a result of the service of notice through damage to, or disruption of, trade. As the noble Lord said, if that were to happen it would be right that they should be able to claim that the disruption had occurred and that they wished to be compensated. Of course, that would be down to evidence of financial loss, not loss of dealings. Shops would have to show clear evidence of that.
I hope that that explains the matter properly. There is a balance. On the one hand, there is the view taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we should be much more willing to compensate. On the other hand, there is the view taken by others that we should not pay a penny. We have tried to steer the middle course and to say that in appropriate cases there should be compensation. However, it is a narrow gateway and will be used only for those who have behaved properly, are innocent of any blame and have taken every step that they can to ensure that the activity does not take place. I hope that explanation satisfies noble Lords.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
I hope that the Minister will forgive me. Although I understand completely what she says, she has not dealt with the narrow issue of compensation being available from the issue of the closure notice. rather than from when the closure has effect. I am bearing in mind that the case has to be heard by magistrates within 48 hours. I assume that if magistrates were to issue such an order, the police would act pretty quickly. I cannot believe that the case would have been brought if there was not a considerable degree of urgency on behalf of the whole neighbouring community.
I am asking about that little oddity—that compensation is apparently available from the issue of the notice when, as far as I can see, apart from the fact that a piece of paper is flying around and people are informed that the process is going on, no other action has been taken. Any loss of income would actually occur from the date when the closure is effected. The same applies to my remarks on subsection (3).

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
The noble Lord's remarks are right in relation to the property itself. However, to use a previous analogy, a shop next door may be adversely affected by the service of the notice—people may not want to come to it, or something like that. It would be difficult to prove, but if shopkeepers had a valid case and could put the evidence that since the notice was served all their custom had dried up and they had made no sales, we should at least give the court an opportunity to listen to them. They may have something valid to say and they may be innocent victims of what went on next door to them. Compensation from the perpetrator might not go amiss, if we got our hands on any ill-gotten gains.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
I hear what the Minister says, and I have some sympathy with it, but the other interpretation might be that shopkeepers were enjoying the benefits of additional trade through the 468 illicit activity that was going on next door. We could argue that backwards and forwards, but I shall study the Government's reply.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
I think that this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until after Starred Questions. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3 p.m.