| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
4.13 pm
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Thomas of Walliswood) in the Chair.]
Clause 13 [Designation of alcohol disorder zones]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 80:
"(2A) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the contents of any proposals to be made under subsection (2)."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 80, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 81, 83 and 90 standing in my name. I note that Amendment No. 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is also in the group; it looks as though the noble Lord, Lord Addington, may speak to it. I will not comment at this stage on Amendment No. 88; at first blush it looks as though it may be a matter that I had intended to cover by Amendment No. 89, which is separate. I will wait with bated breath to hear what issue the noble Lord, Lord Addington, may propose.
We ended our debates on the first day in Committee some three weeks ago by launching into the part of the Bill that sets out how alcohol disorder zones will be set up. Local authorities are being given a new power to designate a locality as an alcohol disorder zone where there is a perceived problem of alcohol-related disorder or a nuisance. Local authorities will have power to impose extra charges on those who hold licences to sell alcohol by retail and on those who hold a club premises licence where alcohol is sold to members and their guests. Charges would be imposed if licensed premises and clubs did not implement an action plan designed to address the problem.
In our previous debates, we heard that there is considerable concern among those who hold licences that they may be unfairly penalised. So much is left to regulation that it is uncertain which retailers will be subject to charges. Clause 13 gives local authorities the power to designate a locality within its area as an alcohol disorder zone, if the conditions set out in Clause 3(1) are met. If the local authority decides that it will designate an area, Clause 13(2) states that it must publish a notice setting out its proposals and
17 May 2006 : Column 285
invite representations to be made within 28 days about both the proposal itself and what might be included in the action plan to tackle the perceived problem.
Amendment No. 80 would impose an obligation on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the contents of any proposals to designate a locality. Amendment No. 90 is the stick that goes with that, because it would ensure that the provisions of Clause 13 could not come into force unless and until guidance and regulations had been published. We would expect such guidance or regulations to include a requirement that those businesses that would have to pay any charges imposed by an alcohol disorder zone be notified individually.
Last October, the Government indicated in another place that such guidance would indeed be forthcoming. We have still not had sight of it. Will the Minister today tell the Committee when the regulations and guidance will be produced? In particular, can he assure us that the House will be able to consider a draft of the guidance before Report?
Amendment No. 83 would require the Secretary of State to specify a maximum number of days within which a draft action plan should be published. The purpose of that amendment is to ensure that all parties are aware of the timeframe within which an action plan should be produced. It would also ensure that local authorities do not delay the drafting of any action plan. It would thus be a more efficient way to approach the designation process.
Although I recognise that this is a relatively minor point of detail, it seems reasonable to suggest a timeframe to the local authority, as that will ensure that things do not drift. If there is an alcohol disorder problem that needs to be addressed, it is surely preferable that those who are responsible know what they have to do about it sooner rather than later. As we shall discuss under a later amendment, they should then be allowed proper time to put that action plan into effect. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I shall briefly make a few comments on Amendment No. 88. The basic idea behind it is to have an implementation period for any remedial action—an eight-week period. Either you let the whole thing happen and allow people to see if it works, or you do not. That is the thinking behind the amendment. Either you have a chance to implement it, or you do not; it works or it does not. That is a brief outline behind the thinking behind the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out the rationale behind her amendments. I will explain how we see Clause 13 working and, in the briefest possible terms, why we must resist the amendments.
Clause 13 sets out the criteria for triggering a proposal for an ADZ. As the noble Baroness acknowledges, it specifies the steps that local authorities and the police must take before a zone can be designated. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness and by the Liberal Democrats relate to those steps.
17 May 2006 : Column 286
Amendment No. 80 would insert in the Bill a specific requirement that guidance be issued on Clause 13(2). That provides for local authorities' proposals for alcohol disorder zones, including the invitation to make representations and what might be included in the action plan. Clause 16 already requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance on ADZs; I assure the Committee that guidance on ADZs will be comprehensive and will include the contents of local authorities' proposals for them. I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will agree that the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 81 and 83 would prescribe a precise timetable from the proposal of an alcohol disorder zone until the publication of the action plan. They would do so by removing from Clause 13(4) the requirement that the action plan is delivered,
following the consultation period, and then by requiring the Secretary of State to prescribe a timetable through regulations. The amendments would also then give the local authority and the police the option of further consultation on the action plan for up to 28 days. I can well understand why the amendment has been proposed, but we want to ensure that the ADZ process is undertaken as quickly as possible so that additional interventions can be deployed to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder effectively. It is certainly not in the interests of local authorities and the police to procrastinate.
Clause 13 already sets what we would describe as a brisk timetable. There are 28 days for the consultation period, and steps must be taken to implement the action plan within eight weeks. So I do not think it would add value for the Secretary of State to specify in regulations a timetable for publication of the action plan following a proposal for an ADZ. We would not want to tie local authorities down to a specific timetable on this. The timing may vary from one area to another for very good reasons. For example, the consultation period may identify in one area a number of key issues that have implications for the action plan and that need to be fully considered. Elsewhere, this may not be required. The opportunity for further consultation on the action plan should be provided if that is required. The guidance will of course reinforce the need for the ADZ process to be undertaken as speedily as possible.
Amendment No. 88, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington spoke, would remove Clause 13(8)(b) and narrow the circumstances where the local authority could make an order designating an area an alcohol disorder zone—that is, move to the compulsory charge. Clause 13(8) sets out the criteria for a designation. There are two possible circumstances for designation: if, after eight weeks, the action plan is not in the process of being implemented; and if, before or after eight weeks, the local authority is satisfied that the plan will not be implemented or the steps in the plan are no longer being taken.
The amendment would remove the second limb of the criteria. The effect of this would be twofold. First, local authorities would have to wait until eight weeks
17 May 2006 : Column 287
had elapsed after the publication of the action plan before designation, regardless of whether there was any will to implement the plan. Secondly, if the plan collapsed suddenly after the eight weeks had elapsed, the local authority would in effect have to re-run the whole consultation process. It is crucial with alcohol disorder zones that the action plan is implemented as soon as possible once the consultation process has been completed. To do this, it is key that important incentives are built into the process. Subsection (8)(b) allows local authorities to move to designation if it is clear that there is no will to implement the action plan. We think that that is critical. It is also critical that there is a firm understanding that there is a need to implement the action plan and that it is totally unacceptable if, after the eight weeks has passed, the commitment to introduce the plan disappears. Subsection (8)(b) provides important incentives which we do not think it would be right to lose. The amendment helpfully provides pointers to further areas that we will need to cover in the guidance on how local authorities exercise these powers. I assure the Committee that those issues will be covered in the guidance.
Finally, Amendment No. 90, tabled by the noble Baroness, would require that guidance and regulations be issued before the powers in the Bill come into force. The regulations are essential for the policy to operate, and I cannot see how local authorities and the police could possibly operate an ADZ without them. The same obviously applies to the guidance. Clause 16 provides for the guidance and places a duty on the police and local authorities to have regard to it. So although the Act may come into force, the fact of the matter is that ADZs cannot operate without the regulations and the guidance. The fact that we have now agreed that the regulations should be subject to affirmative resolution should give some further reassurance. For those reasons, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary.
The noble Baroness asked a specific question about the timing of the publication of the regulations and guidance, and whether it would be before Report stage. I cannot tell her that it will be, but what I set out in explaining our approach should give reassurance that we will not trigger these powers without the guidance and the regulations in place. Of course, we are fully committed to ensuring that we have a full and effective consultation on the framing of guidance and regulations. We want to get this right and make it work. We want to ensure that all the necessary stakeholders—to use the jargon—are formally and properly involved in helping us frame and shape regulations and guidance to give maximum effect to the legislation.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |