I beg to move amendment No. 4, in

clause 1, page 1, line 4, after 'if', insert

'the Chief Executive of a Local Authority or'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 11, in

clause 1, page 2, line 9, after 'constable', insert

'or an officer of a local authority'.

Amendment No. 12, in

clause 1, page 2, line 24, after 'constable', insert 'or local authority officer'.

Amendment No. 16, in

clause 2, page 2, line 38, after 'constable' insert 'or local authority officer'.

Amendment No. 26, in

clause 3, page 3, line 42, at end insert

'or a local authority officer'.

Amendment No. 27, in

clause 5, page 4, line 22, after 'constable' insert

'or a local authority officer'.

Amendment No. 29, in

clause 5, page 4, line 25, at end insert

'or local authority Chief Executive'.

I welcome you, Mr. O'Brien, as Chairman of the Committee, as well as the Ministers and other Committee members.

We begin with an important group of amendments. It will not have escaped the Committee's attention that at present there appear to be more groups of amendments to clause 1 than to any other clause. It is good to begin the debate with a significant issue. The amendments address a matter relating to local authorities and the lead amendment would insert a reference to the local authority chief executive. We want to amend the clause so that the chief executive has the opportunity to deal with so-called crack houses. We believe that to be extremely important and so have tabled related amendments to clauses 2, 3 and 5, but amendment No. 4 is the crucial amendment.

I will say little about the amendment because I want to listen carefully to the Minister's response to it. However, I will say that it is vital that the chief executive of a local authority should have the opportunity to take the initiative in these matters—it should not be only for a police officer to take the initiative, because often it is local authorities that become aware of the these major problems through their work. Other parts of the Bill deal with local authorities, so it is surprising that the Government chose not to give such an ability to chief executives such as Mr. Barry Catchpole, the chief executive of Surrey Heath borough council—the main local authority in my constituency—and a leading member of the crime and disorder partnership, with whom I have had many dealings over the years.

The Minister and I are opposite numbers—the Minister is responsible for drugs policy and I am the shadow Minister responsible for drugs policy—and he will be well aware from previous discussions that I take all drug issues very seriously. I know from all my discussions with Mr. Catchpole that he would find such a power useful, and I suspect that if we talked to SOLACE—the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers—we would find that many chief executives take the same view.

If we are to crack down on drug use, we must take into consideration the powers that local authorities need to deal with the menace of drugs. The Opposition believe that it is absolutely vital to involve not only the police, but local authorities as well. The Government's own logic in setting up crime and disorder partnerships and involving chief executives and senior officers of local authorities in work with the police seems to fall in line with the amendment.

There are other important issues to deal with in relation to this group of amendments and I would be out of order if I advanced too far arguments relating to other groups. The amendment is not simply probing, but is a serious attempt to improve the Bill

so that it works better. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, many parts of the Bill are probably unnecessary, but we accept that any attempt by the Government to deal with the endemic problem of crack houses is a serious matter. They have signalled for some time that they planned a measure similar to this one, but we are worried that some of their measures are not tough enough—I will talk about the use of other classes of drugs when speaking to another group of amendments.

If the powers in clause 1 are to be introduced, a power given to the chief executive of a local authority to initiate matters would be useful. That has come home to me in the past few days. There was a massive seizure of drugs in my constituency over the weekend; I congratulate Surrey police and their chief constable, Denis O'Connor, for the work that led to the seizure, the latest of a series that involved large-scale drug dealing and importation rather than so-called crack houses. It was sufficiently significant to make the national press as well as the local newspapers—the Minister may have seen the story: I am sure that his officials brief him whenever major drugs seizures anywhere in the country get into the national press.

Even in a relatively prosperous constituency such as mine there are deprived areas in which people suffer the scourge of drugs and other areas in which prosperous people are involved in drug dealing. To deal with the scourge of drugs, it would be logical if not only the police but people such as chief executives of local authorities to have the necessary powers. Ministers have made many speeches and released many press statements about the scourge of crack houses and how they can damage areas, and we agree with them, but if we are to respond to such problems—not only in my constituency but anywhere in the country—the Government should give chief executives the power to initiate proceedings, especially given that they are involved in crime and disorder partnerships,.

That is all that I want to say in moving the amendment, but I hope that the Minister takes what we say seriously. I shall listen with interest to his response. We feel strongly about the amendment and I am minded to press it to a Division.

I will speak briefly, but I first want to say that we welcome this part of the Bill. It is well drafted, and I say that in a positive spirit.

We have great concerns about amendment No. 4. We strongly support the crime and disorder partnerships, which make everyone work together, but we feel that the power to initiate proceedings should rest with the police, working closely with the local authority. I noted that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, ''If we talk to chief executives,'' but I do not know whether any consultation has taken place and I have not seen any representations. Furthermore, the Liberal Democrats believe that there will be ambiguity within two-tier local government areas, as several different chief

executives in a crossover of councils might be involved. Our main concern is that a closure order is a police matter.

On the hon. Lady's point about two-tier local authority areas, which is the situation in my part of Surrey, giving the local authority chief executive the power would not mean that one chief executive always has to ask another chief executive. We are not talking about extra complications. The amendment says simply that any chief executive, with the backing of his or her local authority, should have the power to take the initiative.

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the Minister will deal with that point.

My main thrust is that the police should deal with policing. Local authority officers serving a closure order would be accompanied by the police in most circumstances, as it would be a dangerous situation. The power should be firmly located with the police.

I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for the way in which he introduced the amendment. I fully accept his point that it is moved only in the desire to improve the Bill, but I hope that, as I have listened to him, he will listen to me, because we have problems with the amendment.

Those problems are largely in line with the points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). I am glad to see that she supports at least this part of the Bill. She has said that she supports other parts of the Bill but wants them dealt with in another place some time in the future. It sounded a bit like what I call the prayer of the tempted—''O God, make me pure, but not yet''—when she said that she supported parts of the Bill but that they should be dealt with in other vehicles or at another time. The Government believe that antisocial behaviour is an urgent problem. Other vehicles could adequately be used for some measures against antisocial behaviour, but we need to press on with the measures in this Bill.

On the amendment, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath should know that we proposed the new powers as an additional resource to aid the police in combating the scourge of class A drugs, which destroys communities. They are strong, quick and effective powers for the police to protect communities from the substantial nuisance and disorder that is often associated with the use and supply of class A drugs. The powers are not designed to replace the use of the criminal law. Where there is evidence of the unlawful use and supply of drugs, the police will continue to prosecute vigorously under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

The amendments would extend the proposed powers to local authority officers, and I can appreciate why the hon. Gentleman feels as he does; many hon. Members might consider such an extension worthwhile. However, for a number of reasons, it would not be appropriate. I hope that he realises that it might be dangerous to enter premises in which there is serious nuisance or disorder to present a closure notice to its inhabitants, some of whom might be involved in the use or supply of class A drugs. The

powers should be maintained as a police power because police oversight and direction will be vital to their successful use.

The powers should be exercised in consultation with local authorities. In cases in which two local authorities are involved, it will be necessary to consult with both, as social services might be provided at one level and housing at another. The draw on social services as a result of the action taken under the powers may be significant, and the housing authority will have to be involved. Co-operation with the local authority or authorities is essential, which is why we have specified that they must be consulted when a closure notice is made. However, police resources and experience in handling such sensitive operational information and cases will ensure the effective use of the powers. It will also ensure that they are used strategically, as part of local action plans against persistent drug dealing.

Local authorities play an important role in partnership with the police in tackling the nuisance of crack houses. Given the nature of the operations and the potential risks involved, we believe that the powers are properly vested in the police. I am sure that no Committee member would want the situation to arise in which a local authority, having consulted the police but without having gained their consent, initiated action in cases in which the police had ongoing operations. In such matters the police must take a lead because they have the necessary strategic overview and because of the dangers involved. It is not appropriate for local authorities to be in the lead in such actions, although they should be involved.

I hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will reflect on my words and that he will withdraw the amendment.

I thank the Minister for his serious and considered response. I have listened carefully to him, but this has to be a judgment call. I am grateful for his acknowledgment that we are not proposing that local authorities go off on a frolic of their own without consulting the police.

Of course I would be happy if, at a later stage, the Government were to table an amendment to the effect that local authorities could initiate action, but only after full discussion with the police to ensure that no ongoing police surveillance plans were jeopardised. That would be a useful safeguard. However, we strongly feel that sometimes—less often in my local authority than in other local authorities of which I am aware—the local authority desperately wants to deal with something and for some reason the police are obstructive.

I remind the Minister of an occasion during the tenure of his boss, the present Home Secretary, when there was a massive difference of opinion between an authority and a chief constable in Sussex. Partly because of that difference of opinion and partly because of a history of other matters, as a result of the Home Secretary's initiative, the chief constable of Sussex departed his office. We do not wish to go over that sad history, but I am sure that the Minister is aware that there are occasions on which local

authorities see a huge problem—perhaps the existence of a crack house—but are not able to win over the police.

To some extent, that issue is linked to the question of which groups of controlled drugs are governed by this part of the Bill. I will try to persuade the Government that they should extend the Bill to deal with matters well beyond the narrow field of crack houses and class A drugs. I will also suggest that police officers of a lesser rank should be involved. To some extent, it is difficult to talk about the current group of amendments in isolation, because they are linked to others and thus form a pattern showing how we feel this part of the Bill could be improved. We believe that giving a local authority chief executive, in consultation with the police, the power to initiate action is a vital aspect of that improvement.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain the manner in which a local authority that wishes to close down a crack house that the police do not wish to close down will serve notice? There is a growing problem with gun crime in this country and much of it is associated with drugs. The next step I can envisage is that the Conservatives will propose that we have armed local authority officers who will be able to serve notice on crack houses. Is that the logic of the amendment, or does it mean that if local authority officers have served notice, armed police are then required to accompany them to do something that they do not wish to do? There is a degree of ambiguity and I would like the hon. Gentleman to explain his position.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) points out that perhaps the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) has not yet recovered from the bad night that he and his party had last Thursday. Until he intervened, we were having a serious debate on serious issues. I do not think that his was a sensible intervention—nobody is proposing that we have armed local authority officials. He will see later how we wish to deal with serving notice.

I have absolutely no objection to the hon. Gentleman's slapping down the Liberal Democrats, but he must address the point. We are talking about very dangerous circumstances. He accepts that consultation should take place and that the power should be used strategically. Does he envisage consultation taking place at the appropriate level and the local authority, without the agreement of the police, making the decision to close down a crack house? What if police investigations are ongoing, with a view to prosecution? What if for some reason the police do not feel able to share information fully with the local authority? We cannot allow a local authority to initiate action in this area.

I have already said that I do not agree with the Minister about that. I will make my position clear to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Ludlow. I am not proposing that the local authority should be able to take action willy-nilly, completely ignoring the police. The Minister knows perfectly well that in most cases local authority chief executives work closely with the police in crime and

disorder partnerships. All I am saying is that it should be made clear in the Bill that the chief executive of a local authority should have the opportunity to initiate proceedings, after consultation with the police.

I have already told the Minister that I am quite happy for him to rewrite our proposal in such a way that gives a wider role to the chief executives of local authorities. I think that it would be a useful additional power, but there is no point in going around the course again. I have heard what the Minister has said and he has heard what I have said. I wish to press the amendment to a division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in

clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out 'Superintendent' and insert 'Inspector'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 28, in

clause 5, page 4, line 25, leave out 'superintendent' and insert 'inspector'.

In contrast to the previous group of amendments, these raise issues that we want to probe with the Minister. Although it would be helpful for police officers of a slightly lower rank than superintendent to have the powers in the clause, we do not feel as strongly about the issue as we did about the previous group of amendments. None the less, it would be helpful to hear why the rank of superintendent was chosen. I know from the many debates in which the Minister and I have been involved in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and from my years spent practising at the Bar, that officers of the rank of inspector or above are given specific powers in several areas of the law. Restricting the powers in the clause to officers of the rank of superintendent may cause some operational difficulties.

I tabled the amendments before the Easter recess—well before I had the opportunity to talk to senior members of the Police Federation, who were at a reception in the Palace of Westminster last Wednesday afternoon. The event was held under the auspices of the all-party group on police. It so happened that my representative from Surrey was unable to attend, so the chairman of the Police Federation, Jan Berry,

asked me to have a discussion with the inspector responsible for co-ordinating all the inspectors and chief inspectors in the country on behalf of the Police Federation.

The inspector works in the Met, and we talked about areas of the country where issues had arisen that related to his job of representing chief inspectors and inspectors in the Met. This is relevant to the amendments, and I hope that the Minister will take seriously what I say, because I am passing on what I was told by the representative of all inspectors and chief inspectors in the Police Federation. The inspector told me that there was a great shortage of chief inspectors and inspectors in five areas. The shortage is such that the Police Federation has reported the five forces in those areas for not recording the hours worked by their chief inspectors and inspectors. Those officers are working far more hours than they should be because of the shortage.

That situation causes problems that can be a matter of grave public concern. The inspector mentioned an issue that recently arose in Norfolk. I know that area extremely well because all the members of my mother's family live there. Indeed, one of my uncles recently finished his turn as a lay member of the police authority. The Minister may know that there was a very serious firearms incident there. His officials will certainly have heard about it, because it caused considerable comment.

During the incident, there were not enough inspectors and chief inspectors to go around, and there were certainly no superintendents. As a result, a sergeant, who was acting up to inspector, was put in charge. Unfortunately, he had not had all the appropriate training—he was only a sergeant and had only just started as an acting inspector. As a result, certain mistakes were made. I shall not bore the Committee with the details. I am sure that the Minister knows them or can find them out. The point that the man from the Police Federation was making to me last Wednesday afternoon was that this is a serious problem. If there is such a shortage of chief inspectors and inspectors, and an even worse shortage of superintendents—the man from the Police Federation is not responsible for them—I can envisage a situation in which there is no superintendent around to make the decisions. If the Bill at least said that an inspector or perhaps a sergeant who had had the right training and who was acting up to inspector could take the relevant decisions, there would be less of a problem.

Therefore, there is an important, wider point that is not relevant to the Committee but that I hope the Minister will take away. The message that I got from the Police Federation and the person who is directly responsible for liasing with all chief inspectors and inspectors who are members of the federation perhaps reinforces the point that we are making with amendments Nos. 5 and 28. The higher up the ranking one goes, the greater the danger that the right person of the right rank may not be available. Therefore, the amendment would help to strengthen the Bill and provide more flexibility.

Inspector is a fairly serious rank in the police. An inspector or an acting inspector is given decision-making powers on many aspects of the law. It would be perfectly appropriate not to restrict the powers in the clause to the very senior rank of superintendent. I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously, as we are attempting to probe him and improve the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman asks me to explain our thinking in setting the authorisation at the level that we have. To a degree, some of the thinking on the matter harks back to the debate about how we envisage the powers being used.

To be most effective, the police officer who is authorising the use of the powers needs to be of sufficiently high rank to have an overview of all the law enforcement action being conducted in the area. Although police will obviously act with caution, the officer who is authorising the use of the powers will be able to liase and consult effectively on other operations and with the relevant partners at a senior level—specifically, local authorities. It would be an unwanted complication if other sensitive police operations that were unknown at inspector level were compromised by the use of the powers. A superintendent can ensure that there are sufficient safeguards and that regard is paid to the impact on other operations when the powers are used.

The authorisation of a superintendent is required in circumstances involving several other offences. The most notable of the powers available to the superintendent are those in section 42 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to continue the detention of suspects, and those in section 56 to hold a detained person incommunicado. Those powers should be used as a planned response to a problem based on detailed consideration. Although the powers are designed to be able to be used quickly, the decision to use them should not be made instantly, as would normally be the case in authorisations that one could expect when operational command is assumed at the inspector level. We therefore expect the powers to be confirmed by a superintendent.

That is why we have set the level as we have. I understand what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said about the availability of officers in particular circumstances. We expect consultation to take place and a strategic decision to be taken. That is our thinking behind the decision to set the powers at the superintendent level, and that is where the authorisation ought to be.

Just for clarification, if a crack house were also under investigation for, say, terrorist activities by the security forces or special branch, would an inspector know that that activity was taking place and that the security forces were involved? Would not a superintendent be more likely to know such information?

I alluded to the example that the hon. Gentleman mentions. In that case, it would be necessary for the person giving the authorisation to have a strategic overview of all the policing operations in a particular locality. If we required approval at

inspector level, I do not believe that we could adequately ensure that there is always a strategic overview, so authorisation should be at superintendent level. A superintendent ought to have an overview of everything that is going on, whether it involves terrorism or organised crime, and whether there is an investigation of the individuals concerned. That strategic knowledge is necessary before these powers are employed.

I am minded to bring to my hon. Friend's attention the concerns of the police force in my area, which have some validity. It points out that superintendents are not operational 24/7 but that inspectors are. If we want instant responses, involving an inspector rather than a superintendent could be of more value to operational efficiency.

My hon. Friend has a heavy constituency case load, as I do. It would be highly desirable if a nuisance that started at 3 o'clock in the morning, with activities in a crack house waking the neighbours and causing mayhem, could be stopped by 4 o'clock. I am fully aware of the nuisance that is caused on those occasions, and I am sure that such problems occur in Stockton, as they do in Coventry. Attractive though that idea is, we cannot support it. This power is additional to the panoply of existing powers. There is nothing to prevent a constable from taking action through the criminal law against the individuals concerned. However, a strategic overview is required if someone's home is to be sealed up, and they are to be evicted and moved on to the streets. There also needs to be knowledge of other investigations that are going on.

I am sure that my hon. Friend and other members of the Committee have occasionally been driven to distraction by complaints from constituents about nuisance emanating from particular premises. The local police have sometimes decided not to do anything about it for the time being because of an ongoing investigation. The nuisance has continued, and the neighbours have continued to be severely inconvenienced, but we have had to accept the local police commanders' explanation that they were aware of the problem but that something was under consideration or under investigation.

We do not see this as a power that can be used instantaneously at 2.30 or 3 o'clock in the morning, attractive though that may be, but it does give the police a power to shut such premises down in short order. That certainly does not happen now. Even if the police think it appropriate to close down an operation, it can be weeks before the necessary resources and intelligence are put together in order to take effective action. I am afraid we are talking about a matter of days, not minutes.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) has consulted her local police force and got the same information as I have. It was a valuable intervention. I hope that Government Back Benchers will make many more points that reinforce the seriousness of the Opposition's arguments. I said that this was a probing amendment, but it has clearly provided some useful

information, especially from the hon. Lady. Even if nothing that I said caused the Minister to have second thoughts, I am sure that that intervention from his own side will cause him to go back and talk to his officials. Who knows, the Government might come forward at a later stage with an amendment to reassure the police in Stockton in the north-east of England, and police forces throughout the country. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we are talking about what happens at the sharp end. The Minister's response showed that he takes that point seriously, and he spoke of the nuisances that can be caused and how such things happen.

During a combined operation in one of the big drugs cases that I mentioned in a previous debate, raids took place in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). It is ironic that it first came to public attention because at 5 am the police raided a flat on the floor below that of a local journalist. They woke not only the journalist, but everyone else in the building. The chances of those police raids remaining confidential until the police authority had issued a press release later in the day were zero, because the local journalist telephoned not only his own editor, but every editor in Fleet street, telling them about the massive drugs operation.

It was an extremely successful operation, although it was unfortunate that some law-abiding members of the public were disturbed. However, it shows that it is crucial for local inspectors with operational knowledge, who, as the hon. Member for Stockton, South said, work 24/7—to use the current teenage jargon—are available. Unlike superintendents, they are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

I hear what the Minister says. As I said, this is a probing amendment, and we have had a useful debate. However, given the Minister's response to me and to the hon. Member for Stockton, South, the Government will clearly have to think again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 185, in

clause 1, page 1, line 8, after 'use', insert ', production'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 128, in

clause 1, page 1, line 8, after 'use', insert ', manufacture'.

Government amendments Nos. 186, 187, 188 and 190.

Amendment No. 128, tabled by Liberal Democrat Members, raises a valuable point about the use of this power against premises where class A drugs are being manufactured. We agree in principle with that amendment, and we are grateful to hon. Members for raising the issue. The point is addressed in Government amendments Nos. 185 and

188. Those amendments refer to ''production'' rather than ''manufacture'', which is in line with the wording of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the United Nations treaties on drugs. It is essential that the legislation covers premises that are involved in the production of class A drugs but evidence of supply or use is not available. Action should be allowed against such premises, which are often used in organised crime at the highest level. That will also enable action to be taken against premises, which are often residential, where crack is produced—''cooked'' in the jargon—but not sold.

Amendment No. 190 provides for ''production'' and ''supply'' to have the same meaning as in the Misuse of Drugs Act. I commend the Government amendments. I ask the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman not to press amendment No. 128, as the Government amendments have the same effect but use the same language as existing legislation.

First, I thank the Minister for writing to us on 30 April. It was a courtesy letter that, notwithstanding his earlier comments, reflects our constructive approach to the Bill.

We are delighted to be of assistance and very pleased that the Government have included the provision, as it is an important aspect of the chain of drugs supply in these houses. I thank the Minister for his response and for taking on Liberal Democrat ideas.

We have no difficulty with what the Government propose. As the Minister said, the proposal deals with the issue raised in earlier Liberal Democrat amendments. The Government have changed the Bill, adding ''production'' after the word ''use'' in every case, which strengthens the measure. We are happy to support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Before I move to the next group of amendments, there is a bit of housekeeping to do. We will consider the group in which amendment No. 13 is the lead amendment after the group in which amendment No. 10 is the lead amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in

clause 1, page 1, line 8, after 'A', insert 'B or C'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 18, in

clause 2, page 3, line 2, at end insert 'B or C'.

Amendment No. 41, in

clause 11, page 8, line 2, at end insert

'and Class B and Class C controlled drugs are controlled drugs which are Class B and Class C drugs within the meaning of that Act'.

I am having difficulty keeping up with the shifting groups of amendments. I am indebted to the Clerk to the Committee for keeping me posted about the changes as they take place. There was some confusion as the Easter recess commenced just when the Committee was about to start and then there was the long weekend. It gave many of us a few headaches but I hope that we now have the final order of the amendments.

Amendments Nos. 6, 18 and 41 relate to important matters about which those on the Conservative Benches feel extremely strongly. They are not merely probing amendments.

First, on a lesser point, amendment No. 41 would give head teachers the opportunity to take the initiative. The Government may not be very keen on head teachers at the moment, in view of the recent conference of the National Association of Head Teachers, which is pursuing issues that the Government do not like, although we entirely agree with everything that the NAHT has said in the past few days. Despite the Government's current difficulties with head teachers, I hope that the Minister will recognise that it would be tremendously helpful and would strengthen the Bill if head teachers were given additional powers.

The more substantial proposal is in amendments Nos. 6 and 18. They would add to the Bill reference to controlled drugs in classes B and C. I mentioned the matter in our debate on earlier amendments. The Minister has heard me say on many other occasions that the Government are sending the wrong signals to young people on the subject of drugs. Many surveys in the past year or so of teenagers at school show that they all think that cannabis has been legalised. The Home Secretary and the Minister may protest that it has not been legalised, but when considering the effect of drugs on young people, the perception of the law, however incorrect, is a political reality.

Some political parties believe in lots more legalisation of drugs and so do some Back-Bench members of the Government party—the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) is always making speeches about legalisation. The Liberal Democrats have repeatedly passed motions at their party conferences calling for the legalisation of cannabis and, to my amazement and horror, even for the legalisation of ecstasy. Some Liberal Democrats, including the hon. Member whose constituency is next to mine, have called for the legalisation of cocaine. No doubt that crass statement led to the huge advance of the Conservatives taking control of Guildford borough council from the Liberal Democrats: it led to a series of catastrophic defeats for the Liberal Democrats in my constituency and other parts of the area that come under Guildford borough council. The Liberal Democrats continue to pursue such policies. It is no surprise that, when the electorate find out their policies, they reject them comprehensively.

It would be enormously helpful if this part of the Bill were not restricted to so-called crack houses. In some ways, the situation is even more serious if premises are used to produce, distribute or manufacture class B or class C drugs, because of the larger number of addicts who are drawn into the drugs sub-culture. Even though some existing powers are not used properly, some powers in the Bill may, if the Government are right, give a few extra strings to the police's bow. If they do, we see no good reason why they should be restricted to premises used for class A controlled drugs.

The Minister knows that I had the experience in the midlands over many years, starting in the late 1970s, of prosecuting and defending in drugs cases. The drugs problem in the midlands was not quite as bad then as it has become but it was serious enough. I know the Minister's home city extremely well, because I lived there in my early years at the Bar. There was a serious drugs problem in that city, in Birmingham and in Leamington Spa. Many people wondered why on earth there was such a serious problem in Leamington Spa, because it was a nice regency town. However, I know from talking to friends who still live and work in that area that it became the centre for some of the major drug distribution in the midlands. As Members of Parliament are aware, places that look attractive and prosperous are not always immune from drugs. Sadly, they are everywhere. Every area of the country is aware that there are serious problems not only with class A controlled drugs but with class B and C drugs.

The Government say that they need the extra powers. However, it will be quite difficult to defend restricting the powers to controlled drugs in class A. There seems to be no good argument why the powers should not be available for premises that are used for class B and class C drugs. I will listen to what the Minister has to say but I suspect that he may be defending the indefensible. I am not saying that the police have to use extensive powers in every case but giving them the power when we have this legislative opportunity is very important. Surely part of our job as parliamentarians is to ensure that the police have the widest possible powers. They can then use their discretion as to which powers to use in an individual case.

I hope that the Minister will take that point seriously. I also hope, albeit not with huge optimism, that he will say that the Government agree with the Opposition and will accept the amendments. That has happened only once or twice in the many hours of Committee in which I have opposed this Minister. If the Government do not agree to our proposals today, I suspect that they may find that there is quite a degree of media comment when these matters are reported more widely. National newspapers and commentators may well ask why on earth the Government are not taking the opportunity of this legislative vehicle to give the police wider powers, not only for premises used for class A drugs but for premises used for class B and class C drugs.

We all welcome the Bill's powers in respect of class A drugs. It is clear that wider powers are needed and we want them to be used to close those houses in which crack dealers operate and cause mayhem in many of our communities. However, I seek reassurance following the Opposition spokesman's comments about class B and class C drugs. This is an antisocial behaviour Bill, and I am sure that many of us have constituents who continually raise problems in respect of houses where class B and class C drugs are used, dealt and so on. We seek reassurance in the event of the Bill remaining as it is in respect of class A drugs. We all accept that class A drugs cause considerable problems, including, in many instances, gun crime but, in my constituency and

others, immense problems are caused by houses in which there is use of and dealing in drugs that are not class A. I ask for the Minister's assurance that the current laws and the Bill will enable the police and local authorities to deal with those problems.

I was fascinated by the contribution of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who has probably not recovered from the local elections, and by his explanation of amendment No. 41, in which he spoke about head teachers.

I apologise for that. I realise that I misread my notes between amendments Nos. 41 and 43. We will come back to head teachers later.

I am glad to have got that clarification from the hon. Gentleman. Some of us were beginning to get a little worried.

The substantive point is the proposal to include classes B and C in the scope of the power. We are examining antisocial behaviour, and there is a distinct difference between the antisocial behaviour caused by premises where class A drugs are dealt or produced and by premises where class C drugs, especially cannabis, are dealt. It is fairly common knowledge that antisocial behaviour is more likely from someone who is drunk than someone who is stoned on cannabis. It has a soporific rather than an aggressive effect.

They get silly, though. [Laughter.]

Whatever the impact on the individual of smoking cannabis, my experience—and surely the hon. Gentleman's experience—is that the house from which the drug is being dealt has an enormous effect on the local community. That is the point. The hon. Gentleman said that we are dealing with antisocial behaviour, which is the consequence of individuals' decisions about their behaviour causing problems for the rest of the community. In my experience, that happens where cannabis is being dealt. It may not cause the gun crime that cocaine dealing brings, but its impact on the community is enormous.

The hon. Gentleman makes his point well, but there is not the same scale of problem with class A drugs and class C drugs. In a sense, that is what the Bill is examining. We are introducing the power for the first time, and we hope that it will not be necessary to use it extensively. However, when it is necessary, it will clearly need to be used to crack down on crack houses. There may be a call sometime in the future, if cannabis is still a class C drug, to take that into account, but a step is being taken to deal with the most severe end of the drugs problem.

It is clear that class A drugs, with their addictiveness, lead to the associated problems of theft to fund people's habit. We do not see that associated so much with cannabis. The problem of prostitution is also associated with class A drugs, and the premises in question may have a dual use. We do

not see that with class C drugs. I suspect that a range of drugs, from classes A, B and C, are found in some of the premises that the hon. Member for Gedling is talking about.

On what basis does the hon. Gentleman make that statement? If he had spent time in the criminal courts, he would come have come across situations in which premises were used both for dealing cannabis—about to change from class B to class C—and for prostitution.

That is exactly my point. I am not sure if the hon. Gentleman misheard me, but in those circumstances, the new law will be able to deal with the situation because class A drugs are being dealt from those premises. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the record will show what I was saying.

The provision to close down a house because of the possibility that cannabis, when it becomes a class C drug, is being sold could be used where there has been relatively little antisocial behaviour. In fact, further Conservative amendments would remove the antisocial element: the provision would apply only when cannabis was sold. I envisage a situation in which one's house could be closed down if it was discovered that a friend of one's children had walked in with a joint in their pocket. We must sometimes consider these matters in the round.

We cannot support the amendments, which go far too far. The Government's proposals will deal with the substantive problem, but we can reconsider them if we find that they are insufficient a few years down the line. The legislation will deal with the vast majority of the cases because most places will sell a range of drugs. I suspect that very few properties where only cannabis is sold demonstrate the same levels of antisocial behaviour as we see across the board.

I had not intended to speak, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath introduced the amendments so well, but I must respond to the hon. Member for Ludlow. I have never heard such a load of nonsense in my life. Well, I have—I have listened to Liberal Democrats before. His entire argument was predicated on the known policy of the Liberal party to legalise cannabis. The fact is that cannabis is illegal and will remain so, although I share my hon. Friend's view that there is confusion about precisely how illegal it is, given the Government's comments. As the hon. Member for Gedling rightly said, it is associated with as much antisocial behaviour as class A drugs and should be treated with a similar degree of seriousness.

To suggest that anyone who smoked a joint in their house might find it closed down as a result of the amendments is to belittle the issue and to fail to understand its importance. It does not say much for democracy if, over the next three weeks, we cannot have a more serious debate about these issues than we have heard so far from the hon. Member for Ludlow. This is a serious issue. Antisocial behaviour occurs where any class of drug is used, dealt and in some cases manufactured. It is right that the Committee should consider all drugs.

I look forward to the Minister's response to the debate. He may be able to convince us that it is

unnecessary to extend the legislation to class B and class C drugs. However, we all know that drug use can be associated with considerable levels of antisocial behaviour. I hope that members of the Committee can at least be united in their determination to clamp down on antisocial behaviour. The clause does not necessarily cover every single property, but it creates powers, and anyone who has powers has the discretion to us them.

If one person smokes a joint, I cannot for the life of me see that a superintendent will take the power to close down their house. To lower the debate to that standard of argument is pathetic. If, however, a property is clearly being used for the processing of cannabis and large numbers of people will get their cannabis there, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask the Government why such use of the property is not included under the powers in the clause. I hope that the Minister will take that as the argument, rather than the somewhat absurd excuses that we have just heard from the Liberal Democrats.

I have a couple of brief points to make. Antisocial behaviour and drugs, be they class A, B or C, are a fact of life. In my constituency, class B and C drugs, as well as class A drugs, undermine the stability of the neighbourhoods and streets, and have become a critical issue in some areas. We are discussing a matter that has real resonance.

My first point is that, if we included class B and C drugs in the closure operation, that would deflect attention from a startlingly destructive and awful drug—crack cocaine. We should concentrate on that drug, because its effect is horrendously powerful. Some areas on the Tees are already overwhelmed by the emergence of crack cocaine as the main drug used. If we cease to concentrate on that drug and remove the focus of police activity from it, we will be far less effective.

Secondly, I hope that other legislation will respond effectively to the problems of class B and C drugs. In certain parts of my constituency, if class B and C drugs were included in closure operations, more than a third of properties would be defined as candidates for closure. The staggering scale of that, and the fact that children and young people are involved, mean that we should not enter into that debate until we understand the extent of involvement of the support services.

My first point is the more crucial of the two. The use of crack cocaine on the Tees has reached epidemic proportions: we must focus our activity on that drug so that its use can be minimised, if not eradicated. I hope that other legislation will be able to deal with class B and C drugs, without distracting our attention from class A drugs.

I strongly associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton, South, in which she summed up the situation. We are all concerned about the effects of drug taking, but the Bill focuses on antisocial behaviour, and in particular on the intensity and wide range of crime associated with serious drugs. As the hon. Lady said, it is right to

concentrate resources on class A drugs and to establish the agencies that should be involved.

I have my own views about cannabis, which may not be the same as those of the majority of my party, but I hope that the antisocial behaviour of a group of young people who regularly take cannabis would be picked up in other ways. Whatever my views about cannabis, I do not want young people to be criminalised by one act of taking that drug. I want support measures to be included in the Bill, and I believe that there are other ways to deal with behaviour caused by cannabis use. For the most part, the approach to dealing with high spirits and people getting out of control should be totally different from that used to deal with a crack house and its associated crime. That is an important distinction in the Bill.

As this is the first time that I have contributed to the debate, I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien, and look forward to serving under your chairmanship.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I had not intended to speak to this group of amendments. However, having heard some of the arguments that have been advanced, particularly by the Liberal Democrats, I felt compelled to make a brief contribution.

In the spirit of the first day back after the local elections, I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. O'Brien, if I, too, say that the Liberal Democrats might be agitated by—

Order. Stick to the amendment, if you would.

In that case, Mr. O'Brien, I shall avoid mentioning the results in Chelmsford. The hon. Member for Gedling reminded us that the Bill is about antisocial behaviour. It is difficult for the Government to convince Committee members that they are serious about tackling antisocial behaviour if, in the first clause, they take powers to address the use of class A drugs, but not class B and class C drugs.

We Conservatives appreciate that there is a distinction between the categories of drug, but whether cannabis is categorised in class B or class C, both are illegal. That is important to note, because if we are to believe that the Bill is not a legislative gimmick and the Government mean what they say, clause 1 should make the powers available, with discretion, against houses that actively trade in, and in some cases produce, class B and class C drugs.

The Government's mistake at the first hurdle is to say that they are serious about tackling antisocial behaviour and quality of life issues, but to introduce an important power to tackle only class A drugs, not class B or class C drugs. The hon. Member for Gedling fairly pointed out that class B and class C drugs have implications in terms of antisocial behaviour and quality of life. They are dangerous substances and antisocial behaviour tends to occur in properties in which such drugs are used. It might be that in some properties trade in drugs in all three classes takes

place, but that is not always the case. In some properties, the inhabitants are discreetly involved in class B and class C drugs.

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that we are discussing focusing activity and using police time effectively to tackle the epidemic use of extraordinarily powerful and dangerous drugs? His argument would lead to the addition of alcohol and tobacco to the clause.

With respect to the hon. Lady, that is not my argument. This is not an anti-drugs Bill; it is an antisocial behaviour Bill. Therefore, while it is important to tackle the menace of class A drugs—there is unanimous agreement in the Committee about that—it is also important to tackle antisocial behaviour in this context. That is what the Bill is meant to be about. Our argument, articulately made by my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for Surrey Heath, is that a lot of antisocial behaviour is associated with class B and class C drugs and that if the Government were really serious about tackling antisocial behaviour in the context of the Bill, they would extend the powers to cover those classes of narcotic.

Is the hon. Gentleman denying or disputing the advice of the police, which is that, fairly universally, the antisocial behaviour associated with class B and class C drugs is shoplifting, pinching purses from old ladies and similar activities? Those are things that users of those drugs most commonly do. Does he deny that?

There are two points to make. First, I do not doubt that class A drugs are a particular problem in the hon. Lady's constituency—she represents that part of the United Kingdom and I take her word for it. However, police officers in my constituency tell me that in my part of the world a lot of the antisocial behaviour is centred around class B and to some degree class C drugs. Secondly, she herself argued that if the powers were to be taken literally, one third of the houses in her constituency might be subject to closure because they have some involvement with class B or C drugs. If that is true, she can hardly argue that a third of her constituents being affected would not be a serious problem.

If the hon. Gentleman talked to the police, he would find that one of the biggest causes of antisocial behaviour around the country is the illegal sale of large quantities of alcohol. The sale of alcohol from premises and out of windows—I have seen videos of it—is probably a far more significant cause of antisocial behaviour than class B or class C drugs. If there is logic in the hon. Gentleman's argument about what is taking place, why is the illegal sale of alcohol not included on the list as well?

The clause relates to crack houses and the use of premises for the sale of narcotics. Our argument is about which types of narcotics should be covered by the powers in the Bill. Subsection (1)(b) says:

''the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public.''

Our argument is that in a number of circumstances that definition would cover trade in or production of class B drugs and, in certain cases, class C drugs.

To return to the fundamental point of disagreement and a point on which we might have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Gedling, if the Government seriously want to tackle antisocial behaviour and the quality of life issues that are raised by the trade in drugs and its effect on communities, they would include class B and class C drugs in the Bill. We shall find out how real the Government's commitment is when the Minister sums up.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South raised the most pertinent point, which was about priorities and where the real nuisance lies. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath said that anyone who spends time in the courts will be aware that class B and class C drugs cause as much antisocial behaviour as class A drugs. The hon. Member for Rayleigh said that he had consulted the police, who told him—

Rayleigh is pronounced ''Ray-lee''.

Sorry—I have a working class bias against saying such words as ''bath'' with a long ''a''. The hon. Gentleman will have to try to educate me in that regard, although I think that he will struggle.

It is not a matter of class bias or anything else. Rayleigh is written with a ''y''.

I will try. The hon. Gentleman said that he consulted with the police, who told him that much antisocial behaviour is caused by class B and class C drugs. Is he talking about steroids and barbiturates? I am not at all sure what he is saying. In the interests of evidence-based lawmaking, perhaps we can be shown some evidence that there is an issue.

Will the Minister give way?

Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman I shall tell him the two things that I am told as I travel the length and breadth of the country about what the priorities should be, which is what informs our decisions about reclassification and priorities. People repeatedly tell me that crack cocaine is the big new risk, and it was our overwhelming priority in drafting the Bill. Police in several areas told me that they desperately needed the proposed powers, or powers that were at least as effective, to close down crack houses. We know that there are good policing practices in some areas: an exercise that took place in Lambeth not so long ago was designed systematically to close down crack houses, but doing so is not as easy as it needs to be, and massive nuisance is caused in the immediate vicinity of such premises.

Although we were thinking overwhelmingly about crack cocaine, I should say for the record that people who do not face such a big problem with crack cocaine tell me, ''Don't forget about heroin.'' Of course, they are right. Despite people's problems with crack cocaine, the majority of seriously addicted, problematic drug users—the ones who cause all the

costs, commit all the thefts and are involved in all the prostitution—are heroin addicts. That is where we should keep our minds clearly focused.

As the hon. Member for Rayleigh rightly said, we are talking not about a drugs Bill but about an antisocial behaviour Bill and about relieving problems in and around communities. I think that it is right that the Bill focuses on class A drugs, because they are the real the problem. I am more than happy to listen if the police in the hon. Gentleman's area are telling him that class C drugs are causing antisocial behaviour, but I am a little incredulous about that, and I would understand more if it was class B drugs they mentioned. None the less, if class C drugs are causing a lot of antisocial behaviour, I would like to seek the evidence. We may need to make legal provision if that is the case.

I want to bring the Minister back to what Conservative Members were actually saying. I do not think that my hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh and for Surrey Heath were saying that class B and class C drugs cause as much antisocial behaviour as class A drugs, and I am sure that I did not say that, but that is the suggestion that the Minister attributes to my hon. Friends. I find it difficult to believe, however, that he could suggest that they cause no antisocial behaviour.

We simply propose that clause 1 apply to class B and C drugs. The Minister has his safety net in the clause, because it would not simply apply to any house in which drugs—our argument refers to classes B or C, as well as to class A—were being used. It would apply only where

''the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance''.

That is the Minister's safeguard. Clause 1 cannot be triggered where someone is selling or smoking a class B or C drug but not causing a nuisance to the public.

I stress that no one in any way minimises the impact of crack cocaine or, indeed, heroin, which the Minister rightly mentioned. Those must be the priority not only of the Bill but of proper drugs policies. I simply do not understand why he cannot take on board the idea of giving the police the powers that we suggest so that they can take action when there is a disturbance at premises in which drugs are being used, even if they are not sure that class A drugs are being used.

I know that Conservative Members have got their press release sorted, because the hon. Member for Surrey Heath talked about newspapers being interested in the issue. I hope that I did not misrepresent them—I am not unaware of the fact that class B drugs can cause antisocial behaviour. My incredulity relates to the fact that current class C drugs are doing so. Quite genuinely, I would like to hear how that happens.

Just to clarify the issue once and for all, I was seeking to make the point that my constituents are fortunate because they do not currently face a severe problem with class A drugs. That may change, although as the constituency MP I hope that it does not. For absolute clarification, my local police have advised me that when we see

antisocial behaviour relating to drugs in my part of the world, it is primarily related to class B drugs. When I said that it was, to a lesser extent, related to class C drugs, I was referring to cannabis's being reclassified as a class C drug. I hope that that clarifies the matter beyond peradventure.

I now understand what the hon. Gentleman said.

We are speaking of draconian powers. We are talking about throwing people out of their homes. There must be a genuine need if that is to be done. I heard what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said about safeguards in relation to another clause. Other amendments would decouple the issue of nuisance from class A drug use, and class A drug use from the issue of nuisance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to expand on the safeguards issue when we come to later clauses. Those amendments would considerably widen the powers of the Bill.

I believe that this part of the Bill should be confined to dealing with class A drugs. The evidence shows that the overwhelming need is to deal with crack cocaine. I do not think that we can separate heroin from crack cocaine, or that there is any necessity to do so. The overwhelming need is to close down crack dens. The police need to have that power, and that is why we are giving it to them. If Opposition Members think that there are inadequate powers in relation to other drugs, I point out that section 8(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act makes it illegal knowingly to allow cannabis use on premises. So it is difficult to see where section 8(b) would not be available, and where new powers would be necessary to effect enforcement action against premises where someone was allowing cannabis use.

Section 8(b) was framed in a different time, when opium smoking was considered a significant issue. That is now less of an issue than it was when opium was smoked more often. I believe that we have adequate powers against the misuse of class B and class C drugs. We should, at this stage, confine the powers to class A drugs, to give the police the powers that they require, where a real and proven nuisance exists.

I note the Minister's reference to section 8(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. However, we are not simply talking about the use of premises for smoking cannabis. We are talking about the use of premises for smoking cannabis, and the association of those premises with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public. It is the two together that give police the power, if they think it is appropriate, to close the premises down. If there is no disorder or serious nuisance, the rest of the clause cannot be enacted. If the police find that premises are being used for smoking drugs, and there is serious disorder, but they are not certain that the drugs are class A, they are unable to take action. They should be able to close down the premises that are producing disorder, even if the drugs being used there are class B or class C.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I repeat that I believe that the main nuisance is caused by those premises where class A drugs are being used. That is where the focus needs to be, in terms of both antisocial behaviour and drugs misuse. Those are the drugs that are causing massively serious problems in our communities. That is where our effort should be directed, to protect people from the antisocial behaviour that is clearly associated with crack houses, and to deal with it through drugs legislation. Unless I can be persuaded about the level of nuisance that Opposition Members suggest exists, I will resist the amendment.

I wonder whether the Minister is having the same problem as I am in finding what is being said now about antisocial behaviour and drugs incompatible with what is suggested in amendment No. 7, which would insert the word ''or''. Does the Minister share my concern about that gross incompatibility?

I pointed that out to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, when I said that other amendments would decouple the nuisance from the drug use, and the drug use from the nuisance. That would considerably widen the powers that we are debating.

Those powers are stern and draconian, and they are necessary and justified in the circumstances. The problem is real. I have seen it in my constituency, and other hon. Members have seen it in theirs. Crack houses are opening, serious criminals are arming themselves and barricading themselves in so that they can produce crack cocaine, continue to profit from it and get themselves intoxicated on it. The power is entirely justified in those circumstances. However, if we were to evaluate the nuisance, I am not sure that it would justify such power in connection with other substances.

We have had a useful debate, and one of the many useful contributions was made by the hon. Member for Gedling from the Government Back Benches. He was kind enough apologise for having to leave early because of another commitment, but I know that he will read Hansard to discover the response to what he and others said.

It is important that Government Back Benchers support what I and my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for Rayleigh say, because it must surely give the Minister second thoughts. As all hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Gedling, have experienced antisocial behaviour in their constituencies in premises where class B and class C drugs are being used, it seems to us that those powers would be useful also to deal with that. We do not suggest that they should be used on every occasion, but that they would represent an extra weapon in the police's armoury.

One of the few contributions to the debate that I thought was particularly unwise was that of the hon. Member for Ludlow, speaking for the Liberal Democrats. He said that his initial reaction was that we could return to the issue in a few years' time if it proves necessary to extend the powers to class B and

class C drugs. However, there may not be another opportunity.

The Bill provides a vehicle for us to give the police discretionary powers. They do not have to be used on every occasion. We should take this opportunity and, if it turns out that the powers are needed, as many on both sides of the Committee believe they will be, the police will have that weapon to hand. The powers will be included in legislation; the police will not have to use them, but they can choose to do so.

That would be a far more sensible way of proceeding than doing as the Liberal Democrats suggest. However, there seems to be a big difference of view between them. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said that she had her own views but would not tell us what they were, and she clearly does not agree with some of her hon. Friends, or with some of the things said at her party's conference. No doubt we can explore those divisions further as the Committee proceeds.

The Liberal Democrats' position is that although the powers might be needed, we should not give the police such a discretion now, but wait for another opportunity in a few years' time. However, we three Conservative Members believe, as does the hon. Member for Gedling, that it would be far more sensible for the powers to be added to the Bill. That will not undermine what the Minister wants. As he goes around the country, police forces and others involved in the drugs field tell him that crack cocaine produces extra problems. I am sure that that is so. We have all experienced it, particularly those of us who have had responsibility for drugs issues, but that does not mean that we should not provide the powers so that they are in the police's armoury to be used when necessary. I have experienced huge amounts of antisocial behaviour in different parts of the country arising from the dealing of drugs other than class A.

I shall give the Minister just one example of a problem that occurs in our tourist resorts. I have discussed this with some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). If one bed and breakfast in a street of bed and breakfasts goes bankrupt, it might become a DSS hostel, as it is described in the trade, or it might be taken over by drug dealers, or perhaps both. That immediately affects the trade of the legitimate establishments in the rest of the road. The bad drives out the good. The Minister will probably realise as he goes around the country that this is the case in just about every tourist resort. I hope that he will keep the matter in mind. I know that he takes these issues seriously. I am sure that he has listened to the hon. Member for Gedling as well as to others who have spoken in this important debate. I hope that the Government decide in the end that it would be useful for the powers to be available. They need not be used very often.

Finally, I should like to correct a particularly unwise statement made, sadly, by the hon. Member for Ludlow. He said that people who are taking only cannabis are simply quiescent and soporific. If he looks at the medical evidence that has been highlighted in recent weeks, he will see that the propensity to suffer

from schizophrenia is hugely increased by cannabis, particularly if large quantities of stronger types of cannabis are used over a lengthy period. We have all had experience in our constituency surgeries of people who become violent and aggressive because they suffer from schizophrenia. That is one of the reasons why I take a strong view, which differs from the Government's view, about the powers that we need in relation to cannabis. I see no good reason why, when we are trying to control antisocial behaviour, we should not take the opportunity to extend this to class B or class C drugs. We shall therefore press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in

clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 1, in

clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment No. 19, in

clause 2, page 3, line 3, at end insert 'or'.

Amendment No. 2, in

clause 2, page 3, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment No. 20, in

clause 2, page 3, line 5, at end insert 'or'.

Amendment No. 3, in

clause 2, page 3, line 6, leave out paragraph (c).

We now come to the decoupling that the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire mentioned in the previous debate. The amendment is one of our probing amendments. Once again, we seek to explore whether there would be some benefit in giving the police the widest possible powers where one condition or the other is met, but not necessarily both. I recognise that the basis of the last debate was that the rest of the Bill would remain unamended. With the large Government majority on the Committee, that is inevitable. The previous debate was not a false debate, but while we consider this part of the clause we should at least explore the possibility that the police might find it useful if they did not need to establish that both things were happening in order for the powers to come into effect. We shall hear what the Minister has to say.

Once again, I have had discussions with those involved in law and order issues, not only the police

but people in local authorities involved in crime and disorder partnerships and neighbourhood watch organisations, who often suffer the consequences of antisocial behaviour. They represent law-abiding householders, and when I showed them the Government's proposals, many of them felt that it would be better for the police to have the powers when either

''the premises have been used in connection with the unlawful use or supply of a . . . controlled drug''

or

''the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance''.

Many people, particularly those involved in neighbourhood watch, said that if the use of the premises is associated with

''the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance''—

we are talking about only serious nuisance—that alone should be a good reason for the police to intervene. That is an additional point to the question of classes of drugs, and the amendment states that it would be sensible to consider giving the police the power, rather than restricting them by saying that both A and B must happen.

This is another instance in which my experience of what happens at the sharp end—in the criminal courts—may be useful. Lawyers representing defendants could say that the police should not have intervened because they could not establish that both A and B had taken place. I see the Minister acknowledging the way that such arguments are put in court, and I would not want to see those who are responsible for serious nuisance getting away with it because it could be argued later in court that the police did not have enough evidence that both A and B happened. The Minister and his officials should perhaps ask the criminal court prosecutors in the Crown Prosecution Service whether the Government would be leaving a loophole through which some people could slip if they did not agree to the amendment.

It would be wonderful if the Minister agreed with the amendment today, but even if he does not, I hope that he will take the opportunity to speak, not necessarily to the area Crown prosecuting solicitors who are responsible for huge administrative bureaucracies, but to the people at the sharp end, perhaps in Coventry, who go into court day in, day out. He should ask them whether, if the provision is left as ''and'', the Government will leave a loophole, and whether it would be easier to change it to ''or'', so the police can establish A or B and get them, if I may use that colloquialism. I hope that the Minister will take the amendment seriously.

I shall be brief. I am concerned by the degree of muddled thinking at such an early stage in the Bill. Just a few minutes ago, we were assured that the amendment would be okay as long as both the drugs and disorder qualifications were triggered. I am deeply concerned that two minutes later there is a complete change of tack.

I have a real concern about the amendment. As I understand it, it would mean that if premises were associated with

''disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public''

and general antisocial behaviour, they could be boarded up and closed. I want such behaviour tackled but other measures, acceptable behaviour contracts, for example, could be used depending on the nature of the premises. I cannot see that the right solution, come what may, is simply to board up a premises because antisocial behaviour is taking place there.

If we look at the other side of the coin, I see that the Conservatives are concerned about the production and dealing of class A drugs. We are all concerned about that, and I seek the Minister's assurance that that could be picked up by other legislation. That is crucial. We all agree that we want to crack down on that but, for the purposes of this Bill, it is essential to keep the word ''and''.

We are introducing the new powers to tackle the problem of properties where class A drug supply occurs and causes serious nuisance and distress to neighbours in the community. We want to give the police a power that is quick and easy to use but we must ensure that it complies with human rights, so that it can be used with confidence and does not have unwanted or undesirable consequences. We seek to introduce a tough, hard, easy-to-use but clearly focused measure.

The new powers are extensive. They allow the police to close and to seal premises. In many cases, that will mean the displacement of occupants. They are designed to enable properties to be closed where demonstrable harm is being done to the local community. Their impact has been carefully considered. By connecting serious nuisance with drug offences, we are targeting the powers to be used to tackle the most damaging forms of drug dealing, such as crack houses, that lead to immediate disruption of the community.

I understand that many hon. Members share the Government's wish to make the powers as easy as possible for the police to use and to make them apply to any buildings used for drugs but it is important to consider whether such use causes a nuisance. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) raised the same issue as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has raised. However, the amendment would exclude the nuisance requirement and have severe, unintended and undesirable consequences. It is undesirable to allow closure simply on the basis of use rather than use that causes serious nuisance. Some drug users do not pose a threat to their neighbours and the immediate community. If we are to tackle the scourge of class A drugs, we will have to rehabilitate drug addicts more effectively when they come out of prison or treatment centres. Part of that rehabilitation must be an extensive programme of what we call after-care—attempts to get them into work and accommodation.

The unintended consequence of decoupling that I fear most would be that landlords, whether in the private sector or public sector, would be reluctant to give accommodation to people with a history of drug misuse. Such a decoupling could be a serious barrier. A draconian power against the landlord who chooses to give the person accommodation, rather than against the individual who uses class A drugs, could detract from our efforts in other areas.

Further to that point, does the Minister agree that people in such situations often go into shared houses with other tenants? If ''and'' is replaced by ''or'', a house with, say, four tenants could be closed down because one of them takes a class A drug. We hope that no superintendent would invoke the power in such circumstances but the power would exist.

That is right. If the powers were misused, we could create even more nuisance and could prevent vulnerable people who are attempting to get over their addiction from getting treatment. We should do nothing that has an adverse and unintentional impact on our ability to develop treatment and to deal with people who cause our society huge problems. We need to do much more with regard to treatment, and do it more effectively. We should not put people off getting treatment.

The power ensures that action will be taken only when the behaviour of the drug dealer or the user is problematic to the wider community. Where behaviour harms the community, the power ensures that it can be dealt with quickly and with suitable severity. The powers in the Misuse of Drugs Act will still apply. They should be used to prosecute dealers operating from premises where no immediate visible nuisance is apparent. It is extremely unlikely that open dealing from houses would not meet the nuisance criteria. The deletion of the nuisance criteria would not add substantially to the potential powers available to act against dealers in such settings.

I was concerned, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South raised the issue, lest we were doing what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said and making it difficult for practitioners to go to court and to use the powers. I wanted to satisfy myself that there would not be insurmountable barriers to their use. With regard to closure in connection with the use of class A drugs, a police officer will have to have ''reasonable grounds for believing''. That is not too high a requirement before proceeding. The court that hears the case within 48 hours will have to satisfy itself, on the balance of probabilities, that class A drugs are being used, produced or dealt on the premises. We are not putting the barrier too high. Witnesses will have to be prepared to swear and it will have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the premises are being used for class A drugs before action can be taken.

There will be a need for guidance to point the court to the kinds of nuisance considered to be indicative of a need for closure measures. We know what they are—comings and goings 24 hours a day, soliciting in the area, paraphernalia and noise. On the nuisance side alone, without considering class A drug use, powers

such as antisocial behaviour orders and antisocial behaviour contracts already exist. We shall come to other powers in the Bill, such as demoted tenancies and the extension of fixed penalty notices to deal with noise in circumstances in which local authorities have not been able to provide a 24-hour service. We are trying to deal with the nuisance problems that are not associated with class A drugs differently but effectively, and I do not believe that decoupling is appropriate. However, I know that there is concern that we should not set the barriers too high for people to be able to access the powers. I do not believe that we have done that. When the guidance is right, with the level of proof that is specified, it will be an effective and easily usable measure, albeit clearly focused on that kind of nuisance.

Does the Minister agree that if the word ''or'' were included, the police would be brought in to deal with matters such as noise, which they do not currently have to handle? Under the amendment, a policeman would have to take the decision to close a house down because very loud music was being played every night. At the moment that is, rightly, a council matter.

That is the case. Under the amendment, if serious nuisance were caused by a neighbour playing music loudly in the middle of the night, not only could local authorities act—the Bill will make the powers easier to use and more widely available to local authorities—but the police would be able to enter the premises and seal them. That is not appropriate or necessary.

I am grateful to the Minister for his serious response. I am also glad that he has looked into the issue and paid tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, who raised the matter on Second Reading and who tabled some amendments. The Minister has taken advice about the fact that the barriers should not be set too high. That shows that we were right to have this debate, which has been useful, and to explore the matter.

I said that these were probing amendments. As is often the case, it has been a useful probe, because it has got a number of things on the record. However, I am still concerned that there may be cases in which the measure goes wrong. I am particularly concerned that potential witnesses as to the amount of nuisance may be intimidated by drugs suppliers and users. Like me and many other hon. Members, the Minister must have come across situations in which the people involved in the drugs trade are very dangerous and intimidating and law-abiding people are intimidated into failing to give evidence, even when the police want the law-abiding community to come together. One can understand that. People who are involved in the drugs trade and who carry weapons are very frightening and intimidating.

Therefore, it is important to keep these matters under review. In light of the serious way in which the Minister responded, I am sure that he will do so. The Government may be persuaded to think again as there is further consultation and the Bill proceeds to another place. Noble Lords who have great experience in this field may have other comments. The Minister clearly

takes seriously the issues that we have raised and will continue to do so. In light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in

clause 1, page 1, line 14, after 'that', insert

'reasonable steps have been taken to notify'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 9, in

clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out 'has been consulted'.

Amendment No. 30, in

clause 5, page 4, line 30, leave out 'consulted' and insert 'notified'.

I shall be reasonably brief. Again, this is a probing set of amendments. We are talking about the difference between ''consult'' and ''notify''. To forestall any trivial points that the Liberal Democrats might be minded to make, and before they say that this group is going in the opposite direction from what we said under the first group of amendments, let me say that it is entirely appropriate for us to probe exactly what the Government intend, and the amendments are an appropriate way to do so.

I am well aware that if we adopted Liberal Democrat policy, we would consult to death in every local authority and nothing would ever get done—people would always be consulting. As I said, no doubt that led to many of the Liberal Democrat defeats in my area last Thursday night and Friday morning. We wanted to explore with the Minister whether, once a firm decision had been taken, it should simply be a matter of notifying the local authority of that decision. If the Minister was right in saying that the local authority should not be able to initiate the proceedings, perhaps in knocking down our suggestion under the first group of amendments, he should logically have said that it would simply be a matter of notification. Having expected the Government to use their majority to reject our first group of amendments, we say that, if they are pursuing that line, it should logically be a matter of notification. We shall listen with interest to the Minister's response.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath admits the inconsistency in the arguments that we have heard. I should like to defend full consultation. The approach to the issue through crime and disorder partnerships is very much one of partnership, but the word ''notification'' goes against the spirit of that. We must have full consultation, with good partnership working. I do not want that watered down in any way whatever.

I am clearly doing something wrong. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred earlier to the number of hours that I had spent in Committee, but you will know, Mr. O'Brien, because you, too, spent many of those hours in Committee, that most of them were taken up by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. It is more usual for the barbs and venom to be thrown in my direction, but today they were all tossed down the

Gangway at the Liberal Democrats, so I shall have to re-examine my position. Perhaps the hon. Member for Surrey Heath and I are getting close to each other, having spent so much time together.

May I ask the Minister to recollect one thing from our many hours in Committee? Whenever the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has been involved in a Committee, he has taken up much more time than the two of us put together.

I do not know who the hon. Gentleman will persuade to agree with him, if he suggests that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—

Order. The Minister is being naughty. We must stick to the agenda.

I cannot understand the hon. Member for Surrey Heath saying that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is over-worthy—or rather, over-wordy.

The aim of the amendments is to allow the police to use the powers without consulting the local authority. There are many problems with changing the power in that way. It is particularly important that local authorities are aware of police action to close premises in their area. In the case of a residential property, when the tenants or occupiers are made aware of the impending closure, local authority services should be alerted and available to advise people and to deal with the consequences. Those powers will often need to be used quickly, and the relevant services must be able to respond equally quickly to the needs of those seeking advice from the local authority. Consultation with the local authority will give as much warning as possible of the services that it will need to provide.

Consultation in the act of making a closure notice and the subsequent order is also important. In compiling a case against the premises it will be necessary to prove serious nuisance, and the relevant information may be held by local authority officers. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned instances in which it is difficult to encourage witnesses to come forward. In order to obtain an order, we will often be dependent on the statements of professional witnesses, who are local authority employees. The police will need that support in compiling the evidence to submit to the court.

We should not water down the provision. The police should stay in the lead, but there should be consultation with the other agencies that will pick up the pieces afterwards and help to put the case together.

One of the agencies that would need to be consulted is social services, because there may be young children involved in a house that is about to be shut down. It would be inappropriate for the police to close a house down and to give only an hour's notice to the council that they had sealed off a house in which there were young children, particularly if those young children were vulnerable.

Those of us who represent areas where such nuisances exist know that we often deal with vulnerable people whose homes have been taken over. Sometimes they are women living alone and sometimes there are children in the property. It is unthinkable that such action could be taken without full consultation with the local authority, so that it can pick up the pieces. I am in favour of taking tough action against people who allow their premises to be used for class A drugs, but we must be aware of some of the human consequences of the use of the powers.

The debate has been short, but useful in exploring the background to the issues. The Minister has responded as I anticipated. Having aired the issue, I do not seek to press it further, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 10, in

clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out paragraph (f).

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 15, in

clause 1, page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (11).

The amendments are, once again, probing in nature. We wanted to explore the extent of the information set out in paragraph (f). The issue is linked to our earlier discussions about consultation.

Many law-abiding people feel that too much time is spent looking after the interests of offenders and not enough looking after the law-abiding. Faced with the proposal, some of my constituents would ask why there should be a requirement in law for the prosecution—the police—to provide lots of information about ''relevant advice providers'' to offenders. If, for example, the police wanted to use the new powers, why should they have to pause to pick up a pile of leaflets and then be criticised because they had not provided leaflets from enough organisations? Some of my constituents would say, ''What on earth is this doing in legislation? It is pathetic claptrap.''

The Minister's intentions are genuine and I do not castigate him personally for the proposal, but the debate has been worthwhile in putting on the record exactly what the Government have in mind and how long the police have to wait to decide who the ''relevant advice providers'' are. I imagine that the Minister will repeat what he has just said about vulnerable families and the need to involve other agencies, which we all understand. But however prosperous the areas that they represent, all hon. Members' constituencies have pockets of deprivation. As I have said before, in some parts of Camberley, the main town in my constituency, there are houses that have been used for drug dealing.

Even if the full weight of the law is imposed on people, it is important that they should have the opportunity to get advice. However, given that there are legal advice centres, citizens advice bureaux and other organisations, many of which are funded by taxpayers' money, it worries me that the new powers should impose a specific condition on those who are

about to close down a house that they must provide information. People who want advice have plenty of opportunity to get it, and it should not be a condition precedent that stops action from being taken unless information about relevant advice has been provided first.

I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously and, in the spirit in which I make these points, tell us exactly what he has in mind.

That is beginning to stretch credulity about what the Conservatives propose. Let us consider a case in which someone is arrested and the police let that person contact a solicitor or call the duty solicitor—the police are making legal advice available to the person. The Conservatives are suggesting that in a case where a house is being boarded up, the police should not be required to give any information to the person concerned about the legal remedies that might be available to them. That would be taking a step that has not existed in British law for as long as I can remember, and probably not for several centuries. It is an extremely draconian proposal.

The only other advice that is being requested is about housing. We are talking about making people homeless, which is the effect of the proposal. In the case of some of the people involved, that is good, but there may be other people in those properties who do not deserve to be made homeless, although the premises have to be closed down to prevent a nuisance being caused. It is difficult to decide to which individuals to give advice about housing matters. The requirement to give advice about housing matters is entirely sensible because there will be people in some of the properties who have not caused the nuisance but who are the main victims of it. The Conservatives' intention is that people can turn up, slap a notice on the door, board up the property and throw everyone out without having to tell them how to seek legal advice or say how they might seek alternative housing. That applies particularly to people who are the victims of the nuisance and not the perpetrators of it.

My police force, Cleveland, also finds paragraph (f) problematic. I support it. The clause puts a tremendous strain on police officers, whose job is to enforce the law. They cannot always give the appropriate advice. Housing agencies, solicitors and other advice agencies could be infinitely more valuable in that respect. We are not talking about victims or innocent people. We are talking about reasoned advice that can be effectively used if and when necessary.

The Bill says

''give information about relevant advice providers.''

It does not say that the police are to give the advice; they are to give information about how to contact people who will give the advice. If the Bill said that the police had to explain to people what they could and could not do, I would have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Lady. However, it is concerned merely with how people may obtain legal and housing help. Clause 1(11) says:

''information about . . . organisations . . . that provide advice about housing and legal matters''.

I hear the hon. Gentleman. I agree that that is what the Bill says. However, my police force interprets that as giving it an onerous responsibility, and it asks the Minister to be minded of that. It believes that the victims are usually those who live next door: innocent people do not live in the houses that we are considering. Consequently, a range of people would be prepared to give them advice. The integrity of what my police force asks is intact.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath pre-empted my reply with what he said in relation to the previous set of amendments. It is essential, in considering the power, to reflect that its effect, when used on residential properties, is to remove not only those who have been involved in the dealing, use, manufacture and production of class A drugs but others, including children. Our proposals do not impose anything draconian on the police or give them anything difficult to do.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South that the real victims are the communities that put up with this kind of nuisance, which goes on and on. I recognise the syndrome that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath talks about.

Hon. Members ask why the police should have to do certain things. We are not asking them to become experts in giving advice; there is no requirement on them to do so. The clause says that the notice attached to the building, giving people information about what is being done to them, why and its consequences should also give information about the relevant advice providers.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath says that there are other Government-funded organisations, such as citizens advice bureaux, to give people advice. That is precisely what the notice will tell them. It will give information about where they can get legal advice and housing assistance as a result of being evicted from their homes. We are not doing anything that detracts from our main desire, which is to protect communities. In the process, we must surely direct people to where they will be given assistance, having used the measures against them and, in effect, excluded them from their homes. The effect will be the same whether they or people who cohabit with them are guilty. There is a need to take action, but I do not think that we shall fall into the trap that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath talked about.

As I was about to reply to the debate, the thought came to me that the police will not give the advice themselves but simply tell people where to go, and plenty of police officers would be more than happy to do that. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

It was useful to have that on the record. Like the Minister, I have met many police officers who would react to the clause in the way that he suggested. We sometimes react similarly to legislative drafting.

We recognise that it is only right and appropriate for the full weight of advice to be available to people in

a premises who are entirely innocent. I probed the matter, however, because there is sometimes the feeling, as I said, that the law has tilted too much in favour of the lawbreakers, while not doing enough for the law-abiding people. That is particularly relevant in one part of my constituency, which has suffered an absolutely massive gypsy incursion. Law-abiding residents have strongly suggested that all the Government agencies are on the side of those who break the law by dumping tonnes of hard core on a field or taking over land in breach of all the laws about protecting flood plains. That is just an example, and the same problem can arise in relation to other areas of the law.

Now that the Minister has put his thoughts on record, we recognise that the Government do not seek to use the Bill to force the police to give advice and that they will perhaps simply hand over a couple of leaflets. I am reassured and content that important operations will not be delayed while the police rush around trying to find out who every relevant advice provider is before taking action. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in

clause 1, page 2, line 27, leave out subsection (8).

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 14, in

clause 1, page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (9).

Amendment No. 129, in

clause 1, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

'(12) This section does not apply to premises operated by agencies working to aid and rehabilitate drug users and the homeless.'.

Amendment No. 130, in

clause 2, page 3, line 7, at end insert—

'(d) alternative accommodation is available to any resident of the premises who is not involved in the activities described in paragraphs (a) and (b).'.

Amendment No. 24, in

clause 2, page 3, line 25, leave out subsection (9).

We have quite an interesting group of amendments before us. As well as Conservative amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 24, it includes Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 129 and 130. Liberal Democrat Members will obviously speak to their amendments in due course, but I rather think that they have in mind the controversy stirred up by a clinic in Cambridge. An individual was sent to prison—

Two people.

My hon. Friend's constituency is obviously close to Cambridge. Those two people were supposedly involved in helping drug addicts but they found themselves on the wrong side of the law as regards the supply of drugs. If I am right that that is one of the things that the Liberal Democrats have in mind, I may seek to deal later with what they say, because I will have some points to make in response.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 probe the issue of why we need subsections (8) and (9) and clause 2(9). I am rather puzzled by the fact that the Government need to include a subsection that states:

''It is immaterial whether any person has been convicted of an offence relating to the use or supply of a controlled drug.''

The Minister may say that that has been included to avoid doubt, so that no one in the courts has any misgivings. Normally, however, something that is immaterial should not be in the law at all. Clearly, if it is not mentioned, it is immaterial. It is not something that I have been used to seeing in other Acts of Parliament. I do not know whether it marks a new trend in legislative drafting—that something is specified as immaterial. Vast numbers of things could be immaterial in any legislation, but one does not have to set them all out.

We on the Conservative Benches are in favour of less legislation, not more. We do not wish to see the number of Acts of Parliament that the Government repeatedly bring in. We know that the Government have had a problem in that everything that the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), brought in during his disastrous term of office has now, more or less, been repealed and rejected as disastrous by the present Home Secretary. Much of the Government's recent criminal justice Bills have been tearing down, as we call it, the house that Jack built. There has been a rejection of all the mistakes of the previous Home Secretary because the present Home Secretary did not agree with the trend of legislation that the right hon. Member for Blackburn introduced. That has hugely increased the amount of Home Office legislation, and has meant many happy hours in Committee for the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and me.

When we have an opportunity to make any Act of Parliament shorter, and concentrate on what is really relevant, we should take it. I am in favour of an automatic repeal of any legislation that has not been used for a certain amount of time. If I were ever lucky enough to secure a high place in the private Members' ballot in the House, my private Member's Bill would be the automatic repeal of legislation Bill, which would say that, for every one new page of statute law, one would have to find at least one existing page to repeal.

That would concentrate the minds of Ministers and draftsmen wonderfully, because it would mean that we did not have a constant increase in the amount of legislation. Some people would go further and say that, for every page of new law, we should find 10 to repeal. That would represent real deregulation.

I return to this set of amendments. We ought at least to query whether it is necessary to have a specific provision saying that one particular thing is immaterial. That struck us as rather puzzling. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say to justify it. It is not something about which we have a massive problem but it struck us as puzzling that one thing has to be specified as immaterial, when many other things may be immaterial. It is not the sort of thing we normally see in legislation.

I, too, have some concerns about the inclusion of subsection (8) because I am not quite sure why it is there. I have some sympathy with the views expressed but I will wait for the Minister's response. Is it in order for me to speak to amendments Nos. 129 and 130 at this point?

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. I would rather concentrate on those for the moment. Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 are very important to us, and we will be seeking a vote on them, for the reasons that have already been outlined. Part of the equation is rehabilitation. There are some wonderful initiatives in the community, many of them receiving Home Office support—financial and otherwise—which we fear could be affected by some aspects of the Bill as it stands.

We want to see our amendments in the Bill. The first one is concerned with ensuring that the clause does not apply to premises operated by agencies that are working to aid and to rehabilitate drug users and the homeless. We have concerns about the Secretary of State's having the power to set out regulations. Notwithstanding that, we feel that the amendment should be in the Bill. It must be seen as a whole

package. When we have all those excellent initiatives, they must be recognised as such and they must not risk running foul of the law.

Lambeth has been successful in closing down crack houses. Its authorities are involved in lots of activities, which, in the process of rehabilitation, involve having people who are taking drugs in houses. The amendment is meant to be constructive. We feel very strongly about it. It is interesting that the Minister has pre-empted us and mentioned those issues already.

I turn to amendment No. 130, which the Minister has touched on. It seeks to deal with the innocent person who, for some reason or another, is intimidated into allowing activities to take place in their house. It may be a single parent; all sorts of vulnerable people may be used. We want to be assured that there will be provision for rehousing and alternative accommodation. We will be asking for a vote on the two amendments, and we will interested to hear the Minister's comments on amendment No. 13.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.