Violent Crime Reduction Bill
8:19 pm
Viscount Bridgeman (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 10, line 27, at end insert ", provided that no charges shall be payable by any persons or clubs unless the local authority is satisfied on the basis of evidence that it is reasonable to impose charges on those particular persons or clubs"
Viscount Bridgeman (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
The amendment voices the continued concern of myself and my noble friend Lady Anelay about the serious flaws in this clause to which she has already spoken. The alcohol disorder zone proposed in Clause 12 in our opinion contains a fundamental flaw. There is nothing in the scheme in its current form to prevent a local authority from imposing blanket charges on licensed premises and clubs in an alcohol disorder zone, regardless of the degree to which the premises are contributing to the disorder. In our view, that is far too arbitrary and is potentially extremely unfair to those businesses that, for example, close well before the usual times when alcohol-fuelled disorder normally takes place.
The amendment that we propose imposes a requirement on the local authority that it must be satisfied that it is reasonable to impose charges on particular clubs or persons. This provides a safeguard for individual businesses that are entirely innocent of contributing to or causing alcohol-related crime. We acknowledge that establishing a causative link between individuals misbehaving due to excessive drink and specific licensed premises might be problematic, which is why we have set the test as one of reasonableness. The test is entirely straightforward and sensible. The issue is essentially one of fairness: why should a corner shop or convenience store that closes at 6 pm pay for the late night problems caused by a few irresponsible licence holders?
We on these Benches acknowledge that some licensed premises encourage irresponsible drinking—for example, by free drink promotions and so-called happy hours, and by serving individuals who are already drunk. It is entirely reasonable that such irresponsible establishments should be penalised. But the main concern of the trade bodies representing the licensed trade is that there should be a link between paying any charge and being responsible for the alcohol-fuelled trouble. The amendment seeks to redress those concerns.
In another place, the Minister seemed to suggest that attempts will be made to differentiate between certain premises when it comes to assessing how much each will be expected to pay. If that is the Government's intention, why is it going to be left to regulations and why is it not written into the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Attorney General), Home Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
I speak to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69, which attempt to deal with the same problem, but perhaps from a slightly different angle. There is a difficulty that the Government should acknowledge and deal with. As the noble Viscount said a moment ago, there is a basic unfairness if licensed premises which do not contribute to the trouble have to pay a charge simply because their premises are within the designated alcohol disorder zone. My amendments suggest that there should be an exemption from charges, in particular for premises where the supply of alcohol is not permitted between 8 pm and 8 am. I accept that that timing is arbitrary, but it is intended to deal with the corner shop, the supermarket and other premises that close early and are not open late at night causing the difficulties with which the Bill is designed to deal.
Amendment No. 69 fleshes out the matter a little more where it suggests that there should be an exemption for premises where the sale of alcohol has not contributed to alcohol-related disorder in the relevant alcohol disorder zone. That is stating it baldly. How do the Government propose to deal with the issue? Do they seriously suggest that a blanket charge should apply to every licensed premises in the zone, or do they seek to differentiate, as is only fair? I support the amendments.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
The Bill provides for an exemption from the compulsory charge at Clause 12(6). A premises of which the principal use is not the sale of alcohol and where the availability of alcohol is not one of the main reasons why people enter or remain there will be exempt from the alcohol disorder zone charge, but that is the only exemption in the Bill. It would be best if, after mentioning that general reference point, I approached first Amendments Nos. 64 and 69, which, as constructed, would oblige local authorities to determine whether individual pubs and clubs had directly contributed in some way to alcohol-related crime and disorder before they were included within the scope of the alcohol disorder zone charge.
I do not know whether that is what the noble Lords are attempting to achieve, but it would mean that the local authority would have to establish through some research an audit trail that clearly linked inebriated offenders in the public space back to each individual pub, club and off-licence that they may or may not have frequented. That seems to me to be a very difficult thing to achieve. If I were proposing that, I am sure that the accusation would be levelled at me that this was imposing an undue burden on the local authority.
I accept that any proposition for an alcohol disorder zone has to be properly thought through. Yes, of course there will be a degree of research. But to try to track back all the individual actions of those who contributed in some volume to an area becoming blighted by alcohol-related offences would be difficult to achieve. Reflecting on my time in local government, I know that there are certainly areas of our city, Brighton, which have had street alcohol bans and so on. If that had been proposed as part of the proposition, I think people would have raised a number of questions about the extent of the exercise.
The guidance will be stringent. The boundaries of alcohol disorder zones should be sufficiently tightly drawn to take account of potential displacement. I think that it would be reasonable to assume that all premises inside an alcohol disorder zone must be contributing in some way to the problem. For those reasons, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.
Amendment No. 68 would amend the second limb of the exemption test so that premises would be exempt if the principal use of the premises were not the sale of alcohol and the premises traded between the hours of, say, 8 am and 8 pm. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, accepted that this was a somewhat arbitrary selection of hours, but nevertheless argued his case.
The amendment is perhaps intended to provide a bespoke exemption for off-licences. The Bill does not provide any of these bespoke exemptions for the off-trade, and I think that that is right. Alcohol disorder zones are there to secure collective responsibility for the problem of alcohol-related crime and disorder, and, as I think I said during one of the early debates, our expectation is that the alcohol disorder zone will be a measure to be considered as a last resort.
What we would expect to have happened long before a proposition for an alcohol disorder zone is put in place is that local traders, particularly those involved in the sale and distribution of alcohol, would have been called together, would have been encouraged to act in concert, would have been in close contact with the police and the local authority, and would have taken a number of steps preliminary to getting anywhere near to the point where an alcohol disorder zone was considered.
We seek that approach because we think it right that they act in partnership, collectively; it is to encourage collective responsibility—given that alcohol clearly is identified as being a contributor to disorder in many locations—that we seek this particular approach. The alcohol disorder zones are there to secure a more collective approach to the problems of alcohol-related crime and disorder.
We believe that there is a pivotal role for the off-trade to play in tackling alcohol-related crime and disorder, and in particular in providing a secure gateway through robust proof-of-age policies to ensure that under-age people cannot purchase alcohol. I accept fully that there is a tension in drawing a zone around a specific area and in providing a clear audit trail for the specific problems in the public space back to particular premises, but it is key that, in the last resort, the off-trade should accept collective responsibility for the problem.
Of course, it is always open to specific off-premises to meet the terms of the exemptions in Clause 12(7). For example, convenience stores, which sell alcohol as a sideline, should be able to show that the sale of alcohol is not part of their principal business or the principal use of their premises. They may also be able to meet the requirements of the patronage test if the sale of alcohol is not the main reason or one of the main reasons why people enter their premises.
So we are after achieving a practical outcome here. We do not think that exemptions phrased in the way suggested in these amendments are workable or effective. I pose this particular dilemma to those who support these amendments: in my own city, there is a street, St. James's Street, which has in it pubs, clubs, restaurants, off-licences, and one or perhaps even two convenience stores. They all have different opening times according to the nature of their business. Who is to say that the off-licence that is open, say, until 10 o'clock is more or less a contributor to some of the problems that have occurred in the past within that street? It may well be that someone buys two or three cans of beer during the day, and the off-licence closes and finishes its business. They then move on to a pub and then later a club, and their behaviour becomes serious disorder and causes the sorts of problems that we are trying to tackle here. The off-licence may say, "I'm sorry, but we were only open until 10 o'clock in the evening. We had no particular problem with that customer". But one can reasonably argue that it has contributed to that problem because, at some earlier stage in the day, it had the responsibility of whether to sell to that particular customer—who has later gone on to cause problems having, perhaps, reached a higher order of inebriation.
So it is difficult to see how one could possibly accept exemptions phrased as these are. The important principle here is to encourage those businesses to work together, wherever they may be within such an area, to secure a collective approach and some long-term, lasting solutions. I understand the reasons for the amendments but, in terms of practicality, we do not feel comfortable with them and we cannot accept them. I hope that the assurances that I have given will mean that your Lordships feel able to withdraw or not move these amendments.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Attorney General), Home Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
The Minister talks about practicality. I have two main points. First, since the Minister was involved in local government in his part of the world, the local authority has taken on the responsibility of dealing with licensed premises, so he has no experience of the expertise that they are building up in looking at such premises.
Secondly, under subsection (6), the local authority has to make a judgment regarding these exemptions anyway. It is, presumably, for the local authority to decide whether,
"the principal use to which the premises are put does not consist in or include the sale or supply of alcohol".
Equally, it is for it to decide whether,
"the availability of alcohol on those premises",
is or,
"is not the main reason".
These days, what happens is that the local authority convenes hearings at which people give evidence. There is, then, no reason why a local authority could not come to a decision on an evidence-based approach, either along the lines suggested by the noble Viscount, that,
"the local authority is satisfied on the basis of evidence that it is reasonable",
or on the basis that I have put forward in Amendment No. 69, that,
"the sale of alcohol has not contributed to alcohol-related disorder".
In any event, whether it be the Government's original drafting, the Viscount's amendment or my amendments, the local authority is required to make a judgment and to come to a decision on whether exemption applies.
As for the supply of alcohol, Amendment No. 68 premises that,
"the supply of alcohol is not permitted between the hours of 8pm and 8am".
I said that that was an arbitrary time, but there is nothing wrong with encouraging licensed premises, such as an off-licence within an alcohol disorder zone, to tailor the hours that it is open to such a provision. Instead of opening until 9 o'clock and paying a charge, they open until 8 o'clock.
Neither do I accept the argument that if a person starts off sober in the off-licence and, having consumed three or four cans of lager, goes on to drink in a variety of other establishments, ending up in a nightclub, the off-licence at which he got his original drink, while sober, should pay the same as the club, which serves him alcohol when he is clearly drunk. There is a point when it can be said, "This licensed premises is less involved in creating disorder within this particular zone than other licensed premises". It is only fair that a distinction should be made. I do not propose the final mechanism, but there should be one that permits distinctions to be made.
Viscount Bridgeman (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
I am grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to the Minister for his attempts to explain the reasonableness of his case. However, we are unconvinced by the explanation and still have a problem. Take, for instance, a really respectable and upmarket wine merchant's that happens to be in a disorderly zone. That is really a victim of a postcode lottery which requires recognition. We shall study carefully what the Minister has said, but we will probably come back to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Conservative)
moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 11, line 1, leave out "only"
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Conservative)
I shall speak also to Amendment No. 67. The effect of the amendments would be to ensure that the two types of licensed premises set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) would be exempt from any charges imposed by virtue of the clause. The first type would be those premises whose principal use did not involve the sale of alcohol; and the second would be those premises where the availability of alcohol is not the main purpose for which individuals enter them. The way that I drafted the amendments means that they should not fall foul of the Minister's objections on the previous amendment, Amendment No. 64. Indeed, his answer to my noble friend Lord Bridgeman was that premises would be exempted anyway, if the availability of alcohol was not the main reason why people went into them—or, I think that he said, stayed in them. At this late hour, that conjures up some interesting ideas about what they might be doing.
My argument is that it is wrong to leave it to the discretion of the Secretary of State to make such exemptions. There seems no reason to include such premises in the charging scheme. The Minister has already said that they will not be included. If not, why not? If so, why not state that in the Bill? The removal of the word "only" in the amendment also has the advantage of allowing the possibility of creating further exemptions over and above those set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). Surely that is a sensible way to proceed. There must be the possibility of other exemptions, if it becomes demonstrably clear that certain licensed premises are unjustly caught up in the Bill without good reason or are disproportionately burdened. It is right that regulation should be able to take account of those circumstances.
This is one of the key concerns of the licensed trade. The representative organisations, such as the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores, support the amendments, so they therefore have the backing of a significant number of stakeholders who could be affected should the Bill become law in its present form.
I now find myself in horror because I used the word "stakeholders". Ten years of Labour government have clearly had some dreadful effect on me. I shall take the medicine tonight and get rid of that. Goodness me.
Those bodies, which represent responsible licensed businesses, support any measure to tackle violent crime and alcohol disorder. They have made that clear throughout all their discussions both with me and, I know, with the Government. They have actively supported voluntary codes of conduct and schemes to encourage responsible drinking and the retailing of alcohol. However, they are unanimous in voicing their concern that Chapter 2 would have a disproportionate effect on the retail sector without actually tackling the root causes of the issue. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Attorney General), Home Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
I entirely agree with the amendment. There should be room for additional exemptions to be made to those named. As for the word "stakeholders", I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that the full Oxford English Dictionary, in all its volumes, says that its first recorded use was in 1976, by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, so we have claimed it for the Liberal Democrats for some time.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
I think that that is almost an admission of guilt. Anyway, it is not relevant.
The intention behind Amendment No. 66 is to allow for more exemptions to be included in the regulations to be made under the Bill. The amendment would insert into the Bill a requirement to include in regulation the exemption detailed in Clause 6. Taken together, the amendments would clearly open the door to a whole host of further exemptions, in addition to that in Clause 6.
As I said earlier, I understand why Members of the Committee might want to offer up such exemptions, but I cannot accept the amendments. It is important that we use the policy as an encouragement to a collective form of responsibility. I know that that sense of collective responsibility does not always make people on the opposition Benches entirely happy. It is an important principle, but I do not think that there is yet a common understanding between us that alcohol disorder zones are an instrument of last resort, as we believe, and that they are there as part of the general encouragement of such a collective responsibility. This principle could be eroded if we were to accept the amendments, and I do not think that that is in the best interests of the operation of the policy. By including it in the regulations, a plethora of exemptions would allow premises to avoid paying the charge. That brings a problem with it, because the fewer the premises that pay the charge, the higher the charge is likely to be. The charge must therefore be shared reasonably; such terms are more desirable.
I can, however, give assurances that the exemption in Clause 12(6) will be included in the regulations, and that guidance will be issued on the application of the exceptional clause. So there is the opportunity to flesh out more of what we mean by this. The noble Baroness says that too much is being left to another time in terms of regulations and to another place in terms of guidance, but that is the sensible way in which to deal with such issues of detail. I am sure that what I have said will not satisfy noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, but that is our approach to this, and I hope that at least my reassurance will encourage them not to press their amendments at this stage.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Conservative)
I have always thought so highly of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, but I shall have to review my opinion, as he is the source of the word, which I shall not repeat.
I am grateful to the Minister, even though he says no again. But he has given an assurance at the Dispatch Box that the exemptions in the two subsections will be included in the regulations. I shall consult the wine trade, the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores between now and Report to see if they feel that that assurance is sufficiently strong for them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
I should add that we would expect them to be party to the consultations, so they will have the opportunity to make their views known through that process, too.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Conservative)
That is a very helpful addition. The Minister has, of course, taken us to task, saying that the Government have this high-minded approach to collective responsibility. Well, come down off the mountain; we agree with collective responsibility, but it is a case of how one defines responsibility and for what, and to what extent it is fair to expect individuals to be responsible for the group. One must recall that the licensed trade has taken some highly responsible steps towards policing, in the loosest sense, their own trade. The Minister will know of all the examples around the country of the licensed trade even working with local authorities to move a taxi rank or a bus stop so that people coming out of licensed premises will not gather and perhaps get into more difficulty than they should. Very sensible, proactive steps have been taken. There is a feeling out there that the work of these responsible traders has not necessarily been recognised, and that they will be hammered because of the lack of activity by others. I know that we shall come back to that theme.
When the Minister talks about collective responsibility, he must also bear in mind that the Government themselves are exempting some groups from that collective responsibility. That must mean that people will say, "Why not me, too?". I accept the Minister's assurance tonight so far as it goes but, given that the amendments came from outside bodies, it is only right that I should consult them to see if the assurance is sufficient. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Conservative)
moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 11, line 25, leave out paragraph (c).
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Conservative)
In moving Amendment No. 71, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 96 to 100 inclusive. Given the arbitrary nature of the way in which charges for alcohol disorder zones might be imposed, it seems extraordinary that the setting out of the appeals process has been left to regulations. There seems to be a considerable lapse in attention to detail in this particular part of the Bill. We believe that it is fundamentally important that an individual who is held liable to pay certain charges is able to appeal that decision and appeal the rate at which he is being charged. At present, we have not been given the opportunity to look at exactly what that appeals process will be. There is a need for a proper check on the broad powers being conferred on local authorities through the alcohol disorder zones scheme, but at present it is being left to the Secretary of State to create that process by regulations without the level of scrutiny that we should have at this stage. Exactly what is the appeals process that the Government intend to put in place?
My proposed new clauses suggest a method by which a licence holder might appeal against the designation of a zone in its entirety or regarding a specific area within the zone. Although Clause 12(9) makes provision for appeals relating to the payment and enforcement of the charge—in effect, against the charging provisions—no system is proposed by which one can challenge the designation itself. A business, or indeed a group of businesses, might well be affected by the designation terms of revenue as well as by the actual payment of the charges. It might be that people will be deterred from coming into an alcohol disorder zone—for example, to eat at a family restaurant—because of the negative connotations that such a designation may carry.
Therefore, we believe that it would be sensible to provide for a process that allows such an appeal to take place—and is guaranteed to allow such an appeal—rather than exposing local authorities to the possibility of judicial review proceedings every time a designation is challenged. We hope that the Minister is able to accept our proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Attorney General), Home Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
We strongly support the introduction of a proper appeals system on the face of the Bill. It should be remembered that the decisions that are to be made under Clause 12(8) will be decisions made by a local authority. It would be hugely expensive to have to take those decisions on fairly minor matters—liability for charges and rate of charges, for example—by way of judicial review. The setting up of a tribunal, on the other hand, which could quickly gather an expertise on these matters, would much improve anything that the Bill so far contains.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
The amendments seek to create a right of appeal for licence holders against the designation of an alcohol disorder zone to a bespoke alcohol disorder zone tribunal. We have designed an alcohol disorder zone process to be flexible and speedy to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder with the minimum of delay. At the same time, we have provided key checks and balances to be put into the process. They comprise a joint local authority/police trigger for an alcohol disorder zone in which each party must consent to designation. So they have to be satisfied that it is right and give their consent. They also include a formal consultation process lasting 28 days; an eight-week period following that to allow the commencement of the action plan—though it can be shorter if it is clear that there is no intention to implement the plan; and a formal three-monthly review of designation. There are a number of elements to the process.
Additionally, Clause 12(9) provides that regulations may make provision for appeals relating to the payment, collection and enforcement of the charge and liability for payment of the charge. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that it does not seem entirely sensible that each time there is a challenge, a judicial review has to be sought. That is inappropriate. A more workable scheme than a tribunal, an appeals process like a tribunal, makes a lot of sense. We have said that we will work with those involved—whom you might call "stakeholders", if you are the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, or "the affected alcohol community". There are lots of descriptions at hand. We are working with this body of able folk to see how we can best deliver this and link it into existing local government procedures. So we are consulting with those who should be consulted. I think that that is the best way of achieving it. That will provide a robust set of checks and balances, without the need for building in a potentially lengthy appeals process, whether it is set out on the face of the Bill or through regulations.
I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord about appeals. However, I think we have set up a situation which provides for sufficient checks and balances, without the need for a whole new tier of bureaucracy to determine appeals. We have to set that elaborate process on one side. Clause 12(9) makes provision for a system of appeals for a range of things relating to payment, collection and so on, which I referred to earlier. I do not think that we are going as far as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord want, but we have put in place a process of robust checking, and we have made the provisions I have referred to in Clause 12(9). I hope that that will prove to be satisfactory. We will, of course, listen with great care to the stakeholders in this part of the legislation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Attorney General), Home Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
I take issue with the use of the word bureaucracy. This is not about setting up a bureaucracy but about setting up an independent tribunal to determine what could be very important issues to a particular licensee. I appreciate that there will be consultation, but the licensee may find himself within a zone, paying charges that are determined for him, without any right of appeal to an independent tribunal. I do not know what will be produced by the consultations that the noble Lord is having with the industry. But if it were some sort of higher committee of the local authority, then that would obviously be quite unacceptable. From the point of view of ensuring that this Bill is put into effect with a sense of fairness and justice, I think it is worth while that there should be an independent appeals system such as that set out in Amendment No. 96 and thereafter.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Conservative)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his support. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, responded by saying that the Government like the idea of having more of a tribunal system and that they want something robust which has checks and balances. But then he accused me of trying to introduce a bureaucracy, when it appeared that the more he went into his explanation, the more his system became more bureaucratic than mine. There is a fundamental disagreement between us on what is needed on the face of the Bill to ensure a fair way in which the licensed trade may make its appeals against what could be a significant payment by it on a monthly basis. I would never claim that the proposals put forward in my clauses are perfect. But they do represent my view that it is only fair that there should be an independent tribunal, not a bureaucracy, which would give fairness and equity to the licensed trade. It is on that basis that I will ask the opinion of the Committee.
Viscount Bridgeman (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 11, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations made under subsection (8) shall include provision for appeals against decisions determining such questions as set out in subsection (8)(b)."
Viscount Bridgeman (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
In moving Amendment No. 72, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 73. The amendments follow on from the previous amendments, to which my noble friend Lady Anelay has spoken. The purpose of this group of amendments is to try to get some idea of when draft regulations will be published relating to the charges that will be imposed on licence holders in alcohol disorder zones.
It was as long ago as last October that the Government were asked in another place when these draft regulations might be available, and six months later we still have not had a chance to examine them. Bearing in mind the amount of detail that is being left to regulations, can the Minister give the Committee an assurance that draft regulations will be available to be scrutinised before Report?
It has been left to regulations to specify the rate of charges, exemptions and discounts, payments and enforcement and the appeals process. We have already discussed the issue of regulations that specify what the money raised by the scheme can and cannot be used for. These details are absolutely critical if we are to get a clear picture of what the effect of an alcohol disorder zone designation will have—both on businesses and on alcohol-related disorder itself. Before conferring such sweeping powers on local authorities, does the Minister agree that this House needs greater time for scrutiny of the details of such schemes? I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
The amendments are devised—and I believe that the noble Viscount explained it this way—to get on the record some idea of when draft regulations will be published. All I can say at this stage is that the draft regulations will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible after the Act comes into force and that alcohol disorder zones cannot properly function without that secondary legislation. I can also make it clear that we are committed to dealing with the regulations by affirmative resolution. I do not believe that there is any need to include a provision to this effect in the Bill.
Amendment No. 73 would compel the Secretary of State to publish regulations within one month of the Act coming into force. I am sure that the noble Viscount will tell me otherwise, but it is a while since I can recall a piece of legislation making such a grand stipulation. It would be wrong to try to tie us down to such a tight timetable. I understand the noble Viscount's frustration, which has been expressed on a number of occasions during today's deliberations. I am reluctant to say this tonight, but I will obviously confer further with my colleagues and officials to see what more we can say at a later stage in the Bill about the timetable for bringing forth regulations. I certainly understand the sense of frustration that is apparent.
With that being the only assurance I can offer this evening, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I will undertake to ask whether we can provide a slightly firmer sense of how we intend to proceed with the regulatory regime that comes forward in secondary legislation. I understand the desire for there to be a timetable and for transparency—it is a commitment that we want to be able to give. I cannot say more than that this evening but I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
I am most grateful to the Minister, who has obviously been as helpful as he can in the circumstances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 11, line 37, leave out "if they are" and insert "when the following conditions have been"
Viscount Bridgeman (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
Clause 13 sets out the steps the local authority must take before designation of a locality takes place. The test for designation in subsection (1) is a relatively low one. The local authority could make such a designation if satisfied that there has been alcohol-related nuisance, annoyance or disorder. Given the importance of such a decision to designate, it would be far more appropriate if a set of objective conditions had to be met before a decision of this nature was made. That would provide more reassurance to those businesses likely to be affected by any such designations. This kind of designation should occur only when criteria have been fully, clearly and demonstrably met, and not at the whim of a local authority. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie (Labour)
The noble Viscount is a little unfair in using the word "whim". I cannot imagine a local authority designating an alcohol disorder zone unless it is pretty sure that these conditions are met. I generally agree with the noble Viscount that objective tests are better than subjective ones. But the likelihood of repetition of the nuisance, annoyance or disorder, as set out in subsection (1)(c), must be based on the sensible appreciation of the situation by somebody— in this case, the local authority. It cannot be objectively satisfied. In this particular instance, I think that the amendment should not be carried.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
Clause 13 sets out criteria for designating an area as an alcohol disorder zone and specifies the steps that local authorities and the police must take before a zone can be so designated. The noble Viscount's amendment relates to the criteria and those steps.
The Bill provides that the local authority must be satisfied that the tests are met. The amendment seems to be aimed at making the test applied by the local authority more objective. As my noble friend Lord Borrie said, that is always a desirable practice but, in effect, we do not think that the amendment will have any impact on achieving that end.
I understand the intention behind the amendment but we have made it clear that alcohol disorder zones are an intervention of last resort. Accordingly, local authorities and the police will have to present an objective and transparent case for proposing an alcohol disorder zone. It cannot be, to use the noble Viscount's expression, made at someone's whim. There needs to be a system of proper checks and balances in place. But do we need this amendment to achieve that end? I suggest that we do not. The guidance provided for under the Bill will make specific and particular reference to the case for an alcohol disorder zone, and that is the most intelligent way to proceed. It will cover the type of evidence base within which local authorities will have to demonstrate that the criteria have been met. It is in the interests of local communities and certainly of local authorities and the police to promote that approach. In that way, those who are involved in securing the action plan will have a degree of what is sometimes described in the business as "buy-in" to the scheme.
We want an objective approach; we do not want a whimsical approach. I should have thought that given his new leader's enthusiasm for encouraging local interest, local discretion and more local powers for local authorities, the noble Viscount would have welcomed placing with local authorities a responsibility which builds on those conferred on them in the Licensing Act 2003. We on this side sometimes call this an element of new localism. That local authorities take responsibility and encourage collective responsibility is welcome. Alcohol disorder zones go a lot further down that route. That is the approach that we want to secure. I hope that the noble Viscount, having heard what I have said, will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
I am sorry that the word "whim" did not find favour with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. Perhaps "subjective judgment" would be more appropriate. However, I accept that the Minister's intention is for the designations to be as objective as possible. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Attorney General), Home Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 11, line 38, after "been" insert "persistent and repeated"
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Attorney General), Home Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 78, although I shall not pursue Amendment No. 76 at this stage.
Bringing into being the machinery which the implementation of Clause 13 requires will be a lengthy process. The local authority must first of all publish the notice which sets out its proposal to designate a zone and invite representations. A period of 28 days will then elapse. At the end of that period, the local authority and the local chief officer of police must produce the action plan, publish it, and send it to licensed premises that are affected.
It is only if, eight weeks later, they decide that the action plan is not being implemented or will not be implemented at all that they can make the order as set out in Clause 13(1). The Minister has said on a number of occasions that this is an action of last resort. When one considers the lengthy—I hesitate to use the word "cumbersome"—procedure that is involved before the designation can be made, it is obvious that it will not be made lightly. Consequently, it ought not to be made on anything other than very firm grounds.
It is for that reason that Amendment No. 75 suggests that,
"the nuisance or annoyance to members of the public, or a section of the public,"
as referred to in Clause 13(1)(a), should be "persistent and repeated". This procedure ought not to be triggered by a single incident. That would be a perfectly reasonable amendment to make to that subsection.
Objection is taken to the suggestion that the nuisance or annoyance to members of the public does not have take place in the locality that is to be designated as an alcohol disorder zone and that an area may be so designated if the nuisance is "near that locality". I cannot see the point of designating one part of the community as an alcohol disorder zone on the basis of what has happened in another part of the community. So why use the words "or near" in the legislation? Either one deals with the issue that arises within a particular locality or one does not. I cannot see why the licensees in one part of the town should pay charges to the local authority for nuisance and annoyance which have not occurred in that locality but somewhere else. I should like an explanation for the drafting of subsection (1)(a). That is why Amendment No. 77 suggests that the words "or near" be left out.
The Bill creates many powers to deal with disorder that arises through the use of licensed premises. We suggest that the local authority should be satisfied before it goes through the procedure of making the order that every effort has been made to enforce the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003. That is the reason for Amendment No. 78.
I hope the Minister will take these proposed amendments as an attempt to be constructive and that these disorder zones will be instituted only as a measure of last resort. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie (Labour)
I will just refer to the words "or near", which is one part of what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has dealt with. I thought that the inclusion of those words was valuable, in that it would deal with a situation where there is an area or part of a town where a lot of drunkenness or activity that may cause concern to the public takes place; there is then a distance, maybe half a mile, to bus stops, a train service or something of that sort. There are no pubs or places for drinking in that locality, but it is near to the locality where the trouble has been caused. Surely one wants to be able to cover that.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Conservative)
I will certainly want to consider carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has said, but my immediate reaction is that I would be very unhappy with his interpretation being part of the Bill, as it would take collective responsibility to a level that I had not interpreted it to mean. I would be grateful if the Minister could, when he comes to respond, explain to us whether the view of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is the view of the Government. It may be that the Box can assist with that. The noble Lord has raised an interesting explanation of why "or near" might be valuable, but we will need to look at whether it really would be of value and be acceptable. I genuinely find it interesting. The issue was not raised in another place, and we will need to look at it.
Amendment No. 75 has value, because it would ensure that the problems that one wishes to address are not just a one-off event. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has said, the measure will not be triggered by a single incident. I had always assumed that the Government were trying to avoid having an alcohol disorder zone imposed as a result of a single incident. If so, why are they worrying about having an action plan and consultation? To me, this would present the case that the Government are trying to do all they can to avoid having an alcohol disorder zone imposed. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is right: one needs to make sure that the opportunity for designation after a single incident is excluded. He has performed a valuable service.
The noble Lord is also right to draw attention to the drafting of Clause 13. Paragraph (b) talks about "nuisance, annoyance or disorder". I find myself very uncomfortable with the use of the word "annoyance". That is a very low-level test, even if it is connected with alcohol consumption in the locality. It could obviously constitute something relatively trivial, like one of the usual bits of annoyance in any area: someone parking outside your premises, for example. It is on a public highway, but you do not like them doing it. Such behaviour tends to create quite a lot of antagonism, particularly if people do it on more than one occasion—it might be a persistent and repeated activity. Whether something like that, even if it is a persistent and repeated annoyance, should come within the provisions of Clause 13, I remain to be persuaded. I will be interested to hear how the Minister responds to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has raised issues that we will need to consider between now and Report. I have arranged to meet representatives of the licensed trade between now and Report to see what their general response is. We are already teasing out some particular issues that will need probing, rather than resolution on Report.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
The noble Baroness is right that our discussion on alcohol disorder zones has fleshed out some important elements. It is right that we should take the time between now and Report to reflect on some of those points. What I have liked about our debates today is that they have been pragmatic and practically focused, because that is the intention behind the legislation. I am grateful for the approach that has been adopted by both opposition Benches on this range of issues.
I shall deal with the amendments in turn. The noble Lord's first two amendments—although I know that he said that he was not too bothered about Amendment No. 76—focus on the first test, which establishes the link between the consumption of alcohol and the level of proof that is required to establish that the criteria for designation have been satisfied. On the general test—and I repeat the point that I have been making all evening—alcohol disorder zones are an intervention of the last resort. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, recognises and understands that; he took us carefully through the process by which we arrive at the point at which local authorities or the police might want to seek to have an alcohol disorder zone put in place. We want to make it clear that it is the end of a process to try to foster and encourage that sense of collective responsibility to which I have referred.
We want the power to be used as flexibly as possible. The Bill provides the overall framework. Clause 16 provides for guidance to be issued on the administration of alcohol disorder zones. Subsection (2) places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the guidance sets out the alternative steps that should be taken prior to proposing an alcohol disorder zone. Subsection (4) places a duty on local authorities to follow the guidance. I envisage that the guidance will set out in clear terms the alternative interventions to deal with alcohol-related crime and disorder, including tackling those incidents that are not persistent—although the fact that incidents are persistent is one of the things that will cause the local authority and the police, acting together, to consider moving towards an alcohol disorder zone. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, we would not see a single incident as the trigger for such an approach—although one incident might highlight a generality of problems.
We do not need the reference to "persistent and repeated" for which the first amendment provides. The second amendment relates to establishing a link to the levels of crime or disorder required to trigger an alcohol disorder zone. We would not want to lose the general link with the consumption of alcohol in the locality. The policy that we have adopted in our approach is about securing collective responsibility for the problem across the alcohol trade locally, in both the off-licence trade and the on-licence trade. We have to accept that it is often not possible to establish a clear audit trail for the problem in the public space back to individual premises. Again, I do not see the need to lose the link between disorder, anti-social behaviour and alcohol. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his first two amendments.
Amendment No. 77 provoked a discussion about locality. The noble Lord seeks to require that the levels of nuisance and annoyance to members of the public that are included as criteria for the designation of the locality occur precisely in the locality. He is concerned that such activities and incidents of nuisance and annoyance should occur in that locality, rather than somewhere adjacent to it. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment and I can reassure the noble Lord that the zone is to be used where the nuisance and annoyance to the public are most likely to be repeated. Where that is the case, the area will be within the designated zone.
The key issue is displacement. Problems caused in licensed premises in one area may manifest themselves much more clearly in an adjacent area. I have in my mind an image of a parade of shops or perhaps even a whole street, and within that street are a number of different premises—off-licences, public houses, clubs and bars and so on. In some places, it is likely that the incidents which cause the nuisance will take place a little way from where the alcohol is purchased and in a place where the alcohol is consumed.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Attorney General), Home Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord and try to deal with the illustration given by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. What is envisaged in Clause 13 is an action plan, and the costs of that fall on the licensees. If the disorder does not happen where the licensed premises are located, how can the licensees respond to an action plan somewhere else? What are they supposed to do? You cannot expect the licensees to pay for policing the whole town.
For some reason or another, I keep thinking of St James's Street in Brighton when I talk about this issue. The people in St James's Street, who may be perfectly respectable licensees, cannot be responsible for what happens in the railway station, the bus station or a taxi rank somewhere else in town. They cannot send their bouncers, or whatever they have in St James's Street, to sort out these problems; nor, indeed, can they pay for private security firms to roam the whole of Brighton. That is the problem.
I can understand an action plan which says, "You will not serve someone who is drunk; you will remove them from the premises. You will make sure that your premises are properly monitored by security people who are qualified", and matters of that sort. But I cannot see a private army, paid for by licensees, trying to police another area. That, to my mind, is the problem with the words "or near".
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
The noble Lord raises some important issues. Of course, one would not expect the licensees to contribute through the alcohol disorder zone to policing another far-away part of the town. But one might expect the charges raised as a result of the alcohol disorder zone to contribute towards the cost of extra policing in a street or open space close by. Or one might expect licensees, for example, to help through the alcohol disorder zone fund to pay for taxi marshals in an adjacent street or on part of the main streets close to where the licensed premises are located. I think that that is a reasonable expectation of what an alcohol disorder zone charging regime would contribute towards.
The local authority will want to consider very carefully—no doubt it will be part of detailed considerations and consultations locally—designating a zone which is very tightly drawn and which includes the area where the nuisance is most likely to be repeated. That is how we see it working as a matter of practical application.
Amendment No. 78 deals with other measures that should be properly considered before getting to the point at which an alcohol disorder zone is identified as the appropriate remedy. The noble Lord referred to the Licensing Act 2003, and said that those provisions should be fully used to ensure that individual premises have appropriate operating schedules to deal with potential problems.
I agree in general with that approach. The guidance to the provision will set out explicitly that alcohol disorder zones are a measure of last resort, and the circumstances in which they should be used. As an example, where there is a problem with individual premises, of course it would be more sensible to use a licence review against those premises than to declare it an alcohol disorder zone. As I said, alcohol disorder zones are about getting licensees to adopt collective responsibility. The Licensing Act 2003 greatly strengthens local authorities' hands against individual premises, and the alcohol disorder zones policy adds to that and provides them with a valuable tool to establish that collective responsibility as a matter of principle.
I do not think that the noble Lord's amendments are necessary, nor do they add a further layer of clarification, which we can fairly say is already there in the Bill, and will be there as a product of the regulations and guidance that we shall consult on later in the process. I understand the sentiments but our approach makes more sense. I hope that my comments have also satisfied some of the concerns about the way in which the scheme will be constructed.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Attorney General), Home Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
I thank the Minister for his response. I shall read what he said and consider the matter further. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 12, line 1, after "locality" insert "including the proposed content of the action plan"
Viscount Bridgeman (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)
I move the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Anelay and myself. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has obligingly set out the timetable in the process by which an area can be designated as an alcohol disorder zone, so I can speak much more briefly to this amendment.
Amendment No. 79 would speed up the process by ensuring that the draft action plan is published at the same time as the proposal to designate is issued. That way, stakeholders will be able to see the action plan at the consultation stage and can make representations about it rather than being presented with a fait accompli after the opportunity to make representations has passed.
In another place, the Minster agreed with that in principle but stated in Committee on
"through a combination of regulations and guidance",
what a proposal to designate could contain. She also gave a categoric assurance that that,
"will include a requirement to publish the proposed content of the action plan at the consultation stage".
She went on to say,
"that that would be a proper way of proceeding, and better than specifying everything in the Bill".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 20/10/06; col. 146.]
It will come as no surprise to know that we do not agree with that. Our amendment shows how straightforward it would be to include such a requirement on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Attorney General), Home Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
I support the amendment because the proposal to designate the locality will be served by way of a notice if the proposals of the action plan are served at the same time so that local licensees know what is in store for them. The representations that are to be received under subsection (2)(b) are likely to be much fuller and much more focused than would otherwise be the case.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, did not speak to Amendment No. 86, but I am assuming that he is dealing with it because it is grouped with Amendment No. 79.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Attorney General), Home Affairs; Liberal Democrat)
I am sorry, I did not appreciate that Amendment No. 86 was grouped with it. That underlines what I said a moment ago: that the fullest of consultations together with the action plan should be carried out.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
Amendment No. 79 would place a duty on a local authority to publish the content of the proposed action plan when issuing the notice to begin the alcohol disorder zone process. I understand the point behind the amendment: it is right. We know from our consultation with the stakeholders that it is important for interested parties to have an opportunity to see the proposed action plan at the consultation stage. I would also go further and say that it is important that interested parties also see what actions might be undertaken at the compulsory charging stage, so that they have a picture of where the process could end up.
However, this amendment is not the right way to secure that end. I agree with the objective but I do not agree with the way in which the noble Viscount seeks to achieve it. I can assure noble Lords that through a combination of regulations and guidance we will ensure that what we mean by the proposal to designate an alcohol disorder zone is spelt out and spelt out with clarity. It will include a requirement to publish the proposed content of the action plan at the consultation stage. That should satisfy the concerns that have been raised.
Amendment No. 86 would make a specific provision for the affected businesses to be consulted on the action plan. It is clear that it is crucial that the licensed trade along with other interested parties is fully involved at every stage along the route; particularly at the stage when representations are made and an action plan is being prepared. When the local authority publishes the proposed action plan together with a package of measures that will be undertaken using the compulsory charge should the alcohol disorder zone be designated it is vital that the trade engages in a meaningful way. Inserting a provision for consultation in the draft action plan would imply that there needed to be an additional formal round of consultation after the 28 days had elapsed. That would build into the process an unnecessary delay.
I offer the assurance that through guidance local authorities will be made aware of the need to engage with the trade. We have that as a clear objective. I am grateful that the noble Viscount has that as a clear objective. With that reassurance I hope that he will not press his amendment because we are at one. We think that our approach achieves the end more simply and without adding another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and further delaying the process.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The Minister has spoken in such a way that if there was a failure to consult, application for judicial review would undoubtedly succeed.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the Minister. At least he has taken on the intention behind the amendment. We are disappointed that we cannot get it into the Bill, but with that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.