Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 161: 161: Schedule 30, page 285, line 23, at end insert— ““(d) the making of the order is not a disproportionate response to the disorder or nuisance caused; (e) the making of the order will not cause unnecessary hardship or suffering to the families of those against who the order is made; (f) appropriate steps have previously been taken to address the disorder or nuisance without success.”” The noble Lord said: At least I am here. We are aware of the considerable disruptions to the transport system caused by the weather and, knowing the noble Lord, Lord Judd, as I do, I have no doubt that those are the reason why he is not here to move his important amendments. Originally, my task was to follow what he had to say on Amendment No. 160. However, I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 161 and 162. Part 10 of the Bill is the latest in a long line of initiatives designed to deliver the Government’s respect agenda. Schedule 30 deals with a proposal to extend existing powers to close down properties used for the sale of drugs and to cover properties where there is a problem with anti-social behaviour. There is a considerable distinction between closure for antisocial behaviour and closure because of drug-related property difficulties. Drug-related closures are much more likely to concern properties that are used primarily for the sale of drugs and where there are no settled residents. On the other hand, anti-social behaviour closures are much more likely to affect properties that are used as the main family residence. According to the Government’s original consultation on this matter, the closure notices were designed to prevent activities that in themselves are not unlawful. I made that point strongly last week on the problem with anti-social behaviour orders: they create an individual’s personal criminal code in that the individual may be committing a criminal offence for doing something that for the rest of the population is not criminal. In this connection, one can imagine that an anti-social behaviour order could be made in relation to a property on the basis that people frequently enter and leave the property. There are late-night visitors, which is a nuisance to people in the street. That is solved by an anti-social behaviour order, which, if it does not work against the individual, will be translated by these proposals into the closure of what may well be somebody’s home. A closure notice may be authorised by a police superintendent. All that he needs are grounds for believing that there is a problem with anti-social behaviour. Once such a notice is issued, a person who does not own or live in the premises is committing an offence if he remains contrary to the notice pending an application for a full closure order. The police superintendent acts on belief, but that can have a serious effect on the individual. Within 48 hours of the notice being issued, a court must hear an application for the closure order and, if granted, the property is closed down for three months, which can be extended to six months in exceptional circumstances. Return to the premises subject to the order within its operation period will be a criminal offence. Drug-related closure orders—the existing closure orders—appear to be having unfortunate consequences. The problem arising under the existing legislation is called ““cuckooing””—displacing drug dealers from the premises from which they have been operating into other properties. The Guardian in November 2006 said of these drug-related closures that drug dealers, "““are now targeting older people, vulnerable young people or people with mental health problems on housing estates, befriending them, giving them drugs and then taking over their homes””." The existing drug-related orders do not end the problem; they may simply displace it. When the Government consulted on these new anti-social behaviour closure orders, they said that the orders would be considered only as a last resort and would require multi-agency involvement. They also said that the safety of the young and the vulnerable would not be compromised, with the implication that the court would not have the power to make an order unless it was satisfied that proper arrangements were in place to protect their interests. That was in the consultation but it is not in the Bill; there is no safeguard. If an entire family is displaced from its home, proper support arrangements have to be in place. We have therefore tabled amendments to put into the Bill solutions to the problem that I have outlined. Amendment No. 161 refers to the necessity that, "““the making of the order is not a disproportionate response to the disorder or nuisance caused””." In other words, the court should not close down premises if the complaint is from the neighbours that too many people are coming to and fro or that an undesirable business is being carried on there. The second condition is that, "““the making of the order will not cause unnecessary hardship or suffering to the families of those against who the order is made””." The court will have to be satisfied that arrangements are in hand for the vulnerable to be looked after if their home is taken from them. Finally, the amendment requires that, "““appropriate steps have previously been taken to address the disorder or nuisance without success””." We do not feel that it is right that the order should be made straightaway. There should at least be an attempt to solve the problem that is the subject matter of the closure order and such attempts should be clearly explained and put before the court when the closure order is applied for. Consequently, we also make express in Amendment No.162 this provision: "““No closure order shall be made unless the magistrates' court is satisfied that appropriate arrangements have been made by the local authority for alternative accommodation and support for those affected by it””." I hope that Members of the Committee will see that these amendments are not necessarily against the whole idea of closure notices, but we believe that there must be the safeguards that the Government promised in their consultation paper. I beg to move.