Clause 12 - Power to impose charges on
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
6:15 pm

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey and Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 132, in clause 12, page 10, line 17, after first 'authority', insert ', or local authorities,'.

Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 131, in clause 12, page 10, line 17, after 'month', insert

', at an annual rate of no greater than three per cent of a premises' rateable value,'.

Amendment No. 35, in clause 12, page 10, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment No. 43, in clause 12, page 10, line 23, at end insert

'provided that no charges shall be paid, or be payable, by any persons or clubs unless the local authority reasonably believes that such persons or clubs by their acts, or omissions, contribute to the incidence of alcohol-related crime or disorder in the locality.'.

Amendment No. 36, in clause 12, page 10, line 23, at end insert

'and

(c) designated premises supervisors or tenants not holding such a licence but who are responsible for the day-to-day running of the premises.'.

Amendment No. 39, in clause 12, page 10, line 34, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'essential'.

Amendment No. 40, in clause 12, page 10, line 35, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'essential'.

Amendment No. 41, in clause 12, page 11, line 23, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment No. 62, in clause 12, page 11, line 29, leave out paragraph (c).

Amendment No. 63, in clause 12, page 11, line 29, at end insert—

'(9A) Regulations made under subsection (9) shall include provision for appeals against decisions determining such questions as set out in paragraphs (9)(a) and (b).

Amendment No. 42, in clause 12, page 11, line 30, leave out subsection (10).

Government amendment No. 79

Amendment No. 145, in clause 17, page 15, line 4, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 5 and insert

'but the Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument under this Chapter unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey and Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

The clause refers to alcohol disorder zones and the amendment specifically deals with areas that cross local authority boundaries. There is an example in my constituency, where I live. Highgate high street is divided between Haringey   and Camden, with Islington a stone's throw from the bottom of Highgate village. There are five pubs within a distance of about 100 m. Therefore, although Highgate is not the sort of area that one might consider would become the subject of an alcohol disorder zone—

Lynda Waltho (Stourbridge, Labour)

I do not know about that.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey and Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

Excuse me, I shall protect Highgate. Nevertheless, a serious amount of drinking goes on in Highgate village, so it could be classified. I seek clarification about what happens when several authorities are involved. Do they all have to apply for an alcohol disorder zone? Which one collects the charges? Which one consults on the action plan? In the case of Highgate, would all three consult? What happens if authorities disagree with each other about the likely success of an action plan and one wants to go straight to jail without passing Go, so to speak? There are examples of one borough going ahead with a controlled parking zone, causing havoc in the neighbouring borough.

I am concerned that we must not turn such areas into legislative disorder zones rather than alcohol disorder zones, and I would welcome the Minister's clarification. Perhaps the clause contains a drafting error—but it raises a million questions that need to be thought through and answered.

Clause 12, which deals with charging, is probably one of the more long-winded and difficult parts of the Bill. Amendment No. 131 would insert after

''paid to the local authority for each month''

the words

''at an annual rate of no greater than three per cent of a premises' rateable value''.

Rather than make a particular recommendation, I seek to understand the Government's thinking about the charging regime. We do not have draft regulations, although I have seen some sort of guidance. Perhaps I have that the wrong way around; I am not sure whether the document is guidance or regulations.

It is hard to judge at this point whether there will be a cap, or how the provision will be accepted. I believe that the drinks industry fears that there will be no cap or limitation on the charge. Therefore, some details of how the charging mechanism will function should be included in the Bill.

Amendment No. 145 is, again, about the Secretary of State. I have already said several things about limiting his power. The amendment would ensure that regulations were approved by positive rather than negative resolution.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

We are beginning deliberation on an important clause. It creates alcohol disorder zones, which simply means that the Secretary of State can make provision enabling a local authority to make monthly charges against licence holders in their area. It is a fundamentally important clause, and the first thing that I want to say is that, although we on these Benches understand the need for such charges in theory, we want to insist that some provision is   included to protect premises that are innocent of wrongdoing. It seems essential to all of us on this side, and, I venture to suggest, on the Government side, that innocent premises in a particular locality should not be charged. That is a fundamental point, which will require us, I am afraid, subject to what the Government say, to divide the Committee on some of these very important amendments.

Amendment No. 131 is essentially a probing amendment, based on the fact that, under this and subsequent clauses, there appears to be no limit on the charges that can be imposed by local authorities on a particular licensed premises each month. That seems to be an extraordinary proposition, which may end up, if enforced, as nothing more nor less than a revenue-raising activity by a local authority, aimed, like a scattergun, at every single licensed premises in its area, irrespective of merit. The amendment is intended to seek out from the Minister full details of what the maximum charges may be, what the scale of charge will be likely to be, how it would be based, and so on. None of that is in the Bill, which we greatly regret.

Amendment No 35 would omit subsection (1)(b). I am again teasing out from the Minister whether she wants to ensure that all premises that supply alcohol, even if only to their own members, such as sports clubs, are to be included within the alcohol disorder zone charges. The Bill gives the widest possible inclusion rate for premises, but no exclusion for clubs that hold a certificate. It seems an absurd proposition that if there is particular trouble in a high street of a town, on a particular night of the week, the local authorities should be able to get at every single licence holder in the area, including sports and rugby clubs, and say, ''We are declaring an alcohol disorder zone and there will be the following level of charges'', about which the Committee has not yet been informed. That is an absurd proposition.

We believe the most important amendment in the group to be amendment No. 43, and I ask your indulgence, Mr. Forth in saying that although it is not the lead amendment, it is one about which we feel very strongly indeed. We hope for your indulgence at an appropriate stage to enable amendment No. 43 to be put to the vote so that the Committee's opinion can be tested.

Amendment. No. 43 is of great importance. The first part of the clause has already set out the ability to make provision for the imposition of charges of people who hold licences and clubs. I seek to amend it with what I believe to be entirely reasonable words, that

''provided that no charges shall be paid, or be payable, by any persons or clubs unless the local authority reasonably believes that such persons or clubs by their acts, or omissions, contribute to the incidence of alcohol-related crime or disorder in the locality''.

That in effect imposes a duty on local authorities to take the view and to justify it to their electorate and others in their area that they reasonably believe that the person or the premises to be charged has by his or her acts, omissions or otherwise contributed to the incidence of alcohol-related crime. What is wrong with such a provision?

In the last few months, I have been approached by many bodies representing the trade—the many   thousands of convenience stores, the corner shops scattered round the country, and the supermarkets where people come and go innocently to buy their alcohol. I shall summarise some of their thoughts. We all know the root of the problem of late-night drinking and violence on the streets thereafter: apart from the responsibility that clearly lies on the shoulders of the individuals who behave badly, it is predominantly to be laid at the feet of those licensed premises that by their conduct help to contribute to the problem.

For example, I know a pub in the north-east of England where people can play a slot machine. They put in a pound, pull the lever and instead of three cherries coming down as they used to years ago, down comes a sign saying, ''Next drink free'' or ''Next drink half price'' or ''Sorry you've missed out this time''. That is a direct incentive to drink more.

Stephen Pound (Ealing North, Labour)

What is the address?

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman may ask.

I know pubs in the south of England where at certain hours of the day young ladies are admitted free and given free drinks on arrival. I know pubs where the happy hour is extended considerably; we all know of such pubs, and that is where the trouble starts. We all have family, friends or people we know who at the age of 15 or 16 get fake IDs and go into those pubs, which are a direct encouragement of irresponsible drinking. They also serve people who are drunk.

By and large, the licensed trade is very responsible, and I applaud many in licensed premises for the good work that they do, but I am trying to isolate where the trouble is. In truth, the trouble is not in Sainsbury's, Waitrose and Tesco, or in garages that sell alcohol. The theme of the amendment is a good one: if charges are to be imposed, they cannot be imposed across the board by the local authority; there must be some statutory criteria. The fair way to do that is to write into the Bill that charges can be imposed only where the local authority reasonably believes that the premises in question, by its own acts or omissions, has contributed to the incidence of alcohol-related crime or disorder. We would understand that, but we find it difficult to understand the logic in the Bill as drafted or to see the fairness of it.

Amendment No. 36 would insert:

''(c) designated premises supervisors or tenants not holding such a licence but who are responsible for the day-to-day running the premises.''

As drafted, as I understand it, the offender is the person who holds the licence. In many cases, the guilty parties are absent from the premises. Let us say that I hold a licence for a premises—I do not, as it happens—but have absolutely nothing to do with running it. I might have a tenant or a supervisor who has been delegated the responsibility. That is the point of the amendment.

I want briefly to speak about other amendments. Amendment Nos. 39 and 40 are two such. They would omit the word ''appropriate'' and insert ''essential'' in clause 12. There is trouble with subsection (4). It reads:

''The rates of charges fixed under this section must be such as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for securing that the funds that he considers appropriate''—

with no external government on the Secretary of State—

''are available . . . to be used for any purposes specified in or determined under subsection (2).''

To put some constraint on the Secretary of State it would be much better to leave out ''appropriate'' and insert ''essential''.

Amendment No. 62 is simply a probing amendment, because yet again the provision is so general, stating:

''The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about . . . the payment, collection and enforcement of charges imposed in accordance with regulations . . . the determination of questions about liability for such charges, about the rate of charge applicable''

and about ''appeals against decisions''. That is quite outrageous. It goes too far and allows the Secretary of State, having imposed whatever charges he wants, to decide how they are to be collected and enforced and all questions of liability or appeal, as well as allowing him to say that someone should pay or he will suspend their licence. How can we debate any of that? Where is it? If it is in this subsection, I have missed it.

We are being asked to give the Government carte blanche and to give the Secretary of State powers to make by regulation all sorts of decisions of great importance about alcohol disorder zones and the premises therein, which of them will be charged and how much. That is a very poor state of affairs. How can we debate any of it? There is a huge absence of natural justice, and it is hugely penal on a number of premises, yet it appears that we will not properly be able to debate it because of a total absence of proper detail.

I shall deal briefly with amendment No. 63, which relates to appeals. It states:

''Regulations made under subsection (9) shall include provision for appeals against decisions determining such questions as set out''.

Does the rest of the Committee agree that that sweeping powers to create an alcohol disorder zone must be subject at some stage to a proper check and balance? There must be a right for a person affected by such a decision by the Government to take the matter further—to say that they want to appeal. There should be a proper, streamlined method. We shall discuss appeals again later, but I make that preliminary point, because I do not, at present, see proper provision in this section for appeals.

My fundamental point is that we seek from the Minister the clearest of undertakings that businesses that are not in any way culpable or to blame for alcohol disorder in their locality will not be asked to pay any charges. Behind the Minister, a number of her colleagues are nodding in support of what I have said, but the Minister is looking round now, and they have stopped nodding.

Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd, Labour)

I was scratching.  

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman says that he was scratching. It is sometimes instructive to look behind you.

Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Labour)

Is the hon. Gentleman able to tell us of any section of the licensed trade that admits that it contributes substantially to alcohol disorder?

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

No, I do not—[Interruption.] I say to the hon. Lady, who has a long history in the House of Commons, that the fact that I do not know of a particular section that is prepared to admit that it is at fault does not mean that there are not sections that are at fault. In the same way, one does not often find people who are prepared to admit that they have committed crimes, but one still needs to have them arrested, charged and prosecuted.

Jeremy Wright (Rugby and Kenilworth, Conservative)

If I understand correctly the amendments that my hon. Friend has tabled, he suggests that an alcohol disorder zone can be imposed on an area in its entirety, following a local authority's assessment that it presents a problem. However, the provision does not allow the local authority—or anyone else—to distinguish between the licensed premises that contribute to the problem and those that do not.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—[Interruption.] I did not hear the intervention made by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), but no doubt, with his experience of the world, he will make his own contribution to the debate. We have waited two or three days to hear him speak, and we will look forward to that contribution.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Where is it said in the Bill that those who are at fault will in some way be punished and those who are not at fault will be exempted? That is the point. I do not believe that any House of Commons should give the power to the Minister or to local authorities randomly to impose charges across the board irrespective of questions of guilt or innocence.

The problem with alcohol disorder zones is that they are indiscriminate in many ways; they are a catch-all, and almost by definition they are unjust. One of those who briefed me makes the point that the principle of alcohol disorder zones is that all premises of a certain type within a designated zone will be affected, rather than focusing on those premises that are at fault. Responsible premises will, or may, therefore suffer.

It is a fact that an alcohol disorder zone can even be proposed in areas where all proprietors take a responsible attitude. I wonder whether it has occurred to hon. Members—we shall discuss this matter later—that under the Bill, even in an area where every licensed premises is utterly and wholly responsible in its dealings, an alcohol disorder zone can still be imposed. That is provided for in clause 13, which I implore hon. Members to read. That clause permits the imposition of an alcohol disorder zone in an area

''associated with the consumption of alcohol in that locality or with the consumption of alcohol supplied at premises in that locality.''

That is an absurd situation. Even a particularly innocent town, where nothing wrong has ever happened, could find itself turned into an alcohol disorder zone because people buy drinks elsewhere in the area—outside the town—and come into the town and cause the trouble. That is the direct effect of clause 13. Why impose an alcohol disorder zone, with the consequent charges, on an entirely innocent town, where no one is at fault?

Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

In the hypothetical case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the local authority has other remedies. It can have a byelaw under which the police can go round taking the drink away and pouring it down the gutter. There are plenty of remedies other than the alcohol disorder zone. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman has a problem.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

I happen to believe that if a Bill says something, that is what it means. I have had enough of this Government saying that the Bill may say X but they do not intend to enforce it and will proceed in a different way. The Bill says that an alcohol disorder zone can be created in a locality where no one is at fault. If the hon. Lady thinks that the Bill does not say that, she must tell me.

Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)

Order. I think that the Committee is drifting towards clause 13. I ask the hon. Gentleman and the Committee to concentrate on clause 12. We will get on to clause 13 in due course.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

I accept what you say absolutely, Mr. Forth. I have made my fundamental point. A number of amendments in this group are designed to protect the innocent and to draw from the Government more details of what they are seeking to do with the clause.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

Alcohol disorder zones are an essential part of controlling this sort of behaviour. If we are to have such zones, there must be charges on people and penalties on those who operate within them. I have some sympathy with the point that the hon. Member for Woking made: licensed premises that conduct business well and do not encourage excessive drinking should not be subject to charges. I want some clarification about how it is possible to separate out the responsible premises from the irresponsible premises.

I can think of a number of areas in my constituency where there is a concentration of premises. Binge drinking often involves people moving from one set of premises to another, all of which, individually, may conduct their business in a reasonable and well-ordered fashion. However, the cumulative effect of young people and other drinkers moving from one pub to another, getting increasing levels of alcohol in their bodies, can create difficulties in that area.

I am trying to be helpful. How does one differentiate between the premises that have caused the problem and those that have not where there is a conglomeration of premises and where many people are attracted into the area for the purpose of having a drink, moving from one place to another and then perhaps engaging in the sort of behaviour that the Bill is designed to tackle? How will a local authority distinguish between those premises?  

As has been pointed out, none of them will admit that they are the source of the problem and, indeed, all of them may be conducting their business in a reasonable way. But it is the cumulative effect of all of those premises together that causes the problem and leads to higher costs for the local authority, for which it will seek to be reimbursed, and leads also to problems for local people. I should be interested to hear how the hon. Member for Woking thinks that one can distinguish between one and the other.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

If we stick to clause 12 and the charging, I think that the Government have tried to adopt a moderate approach. On the one hand, we are pressed by some people who genuinely want us to deal with alcohol-related disorder and to have a levy on the whole of the industry for the costs of extra policing that binge drinking causes in our communities. Many people are very angry about that and they have pressed me to say, ''If this is such a problem, why do we not have a levy on the whole industry?'' That is not the right approach to take. We have attempted to target the mischief and to bear down on those areas where alcohol misuse causes the community a real problem. We are attempting to establish a framework that targets that mischief, while being as fair as we can be to different premises in that area.

Other people have pressed to have a complete flat-rate charge for all premises in an area. We could have adopted that approach, but we have not done so because it would have been a fairly blunt instrument to use to deal with the problems. Along with my letter to members of 11 October, I circulated as much detail as I could on the proposed framework, how we would be looking at charges for individual premises and how we would be considering the factors that would make up those charges. I also circulated the process by which an alcohol disorder zone can be designated. The idea is that we use that process as a last resort.

We have an action plan, whereby people get together and come up with solutions to problems before we go down the route of having an alcohol disorder zone, with the necessary charges that flow from that. This is not a case of the Government seeking to tar all premises with the same brush and to have an unfair, broad-brush approach for everyone.

The purpose of amendment No. 132, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, was to see whether charges could be paid to several local authorities because of the contiguous nature of premises that might be involved. We cannot do that because we must have some boundaries. This is a local authority issue. We have local authority boundaries, and local authorities will have to deal with the premises that are in their area. There is no reason, however, why two neighbouring local authorities could not co-operate and collaborate to designate alcohol disorder zones. Each local authority would still need to make its own decision about designation and about its action plan. The measures in one's action plan could be the same as those for the neighbouring local authority. Indeed, it would probably be appropriate for two neighbouring local authorities to adopt the same measures. I do not think that we can accept the hon. Lady's amendment,   but she makes a genuine point—where premises span two local authority areas, there will need to be collaboration in designating the areas and in drawing up the action plan.

The purpose of amendment No. 131 was to impose a cap on the amount of charges. The hon. Member for Woking raised the issue of a limit on the charges that the Government or a local authority could impose. The amendment proposed a cap on the level of the compulsory charge set at the monthly equivalent of 3 per cent. of premises' annual rateable value.

I am thinking carefully about what that level should be. We have been discussing it with various stakeholders, such as the industry and local authorities. We wish to set a meaningful level of charge, which is sufficient to recover the cost of local agencies mounting an effective package of intervention based on local needs. The charge must be enforceable and payable. It should not be set at a level that simply puts people out of business. It should not be too high as to destroy the night-time economy. In many cases, the night-time economy is important. We want to control that economy rather than undermine it.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey and Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

Does the Minister accept that there needs to be a cap in the Bill to put to rest the minds of all those establishments that look to this Committee to get some sense of what the cost will be and whether their businesses will survive this legislation?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I am prepared to consider the matter further. I cannot give the hon. Lady the undertaking that she looks for at this particular stage. I am mindful of the fact that charges need to be set at a level that enables the police and local authorities to recover the costs of the extra enforcement activity. However, charges should not be set at a level that is so high that it could have almost the reverse effect and push people into economic non-viability. We have often found that it is the premises that are on the edge of viability that cause the most problems, because they do not conduct their businesses in a responsible way. I am mindful of that fact.

I also wish to provide an incentive for people to enter into business improvement district arrangements. We now have seven of those throughout the country. People voluntarily come together and agree to pay extra costs in order to improve the night-time economy and to attract more people into the area because the environment is safer. If I can, through the process of alcohol disorder zones, encourage people to come together voluntarily, that is exactly what I want to do. The alcohol disorder zone process, as I have said time and again, is a last resort. We do not want to enter that territory. However, if it is necessary and people will not get an action plan together or form a business improvement district and take collective responsibility for the problems in our town and city centres, it will be necessary to set up an alcohol disorder zone, and they will have to pay extra charges for the cost of policing and enforcement in the area. I am determined that the problems on our streets and in our towns and city   centres will be tackled effectively. People need to know that there will be a charge at the end of the process.

The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made an important point about how to determine exactly who is the culprit in the relevant circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) also made the important point that people are reluctant to own up to conducting their businesses irresponsibly. How do we know where a person had the last alcopop or the last vodka and Red Bull, or what ever it was that sent them over the edge into the kind of violence that is all too often seen on a Friday and Saturday night?

If an alcohol disorder zone is designated, inevitably tension will arise over who exactly is responsible, However, one of our main reasons for making the proposals is to get people to take collective responsibility for their neighbourhood. The good operators may be able to put pressure on the poorer operators to conform to proper responsible standards in conducting their business. That is why the policy is so important for us.

Hon. Members asked about sporting clubs and rugby clubs. In some cases clubs are large contributors to the night-time economy. Company clubs, and even Labour clubs and Conservative clubs, may be regular well-established drinking establishments.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey and Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

What about Liberal Democrat clubs?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I am not aware of any Liberal Democrat clubs. They are perhaps more likely to be temperance clubs; I am not sure.

I shall consider the question of members' clubs, but I do not entirely accept the assertion of the hon. Member for Woking that they are all the most wonderfully well run establishments, with never a hint of any alcohol-related disorder.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

I never said that. The Minister keeps attributing to me words that I did not say. Perhaps she can have Hansard read through, to establish that I did not say those words.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I think the hon. Gentleman protests too much, on occasion. I think that what he was attempting to say—well, perhaps I should not put words into his mouth; it appeared to me that he was saying that members clubs ought not to be included in the provisions because they could be perfectly respectable and responsible. I have no doubt that many are, but I am not satisfied that every private members club does not contribute to alcohol-related disorder. It is fairly well known that some of the drinking games that take place in rugby clubs can lead to excessive drinking, and the activities that flow from it.

I cannot agree to amendment No. 43, which would hit at the heart of our policy on alcohol disorder zones. It would oblige local authorities to determine whether individual pubs and clubs had directly contributed to the crime and disorder, and offer exemptions or discounts on that basis. That would in effect mean that the local authority would have to establish an   audit trail—the hon. Member for East Antrim has already suggested how difficult that could be—clearly linking inebriated offenders in the public space back to the particular pubs, clubs or off-licences that they frequented. As I pointed out just now, it is difficult to say whether a particular gin and tonic in a given pub at 8 o'clock sent someone over the edge and led to their having a fight in the taxi queue, or that the three pints of lager in another pub contributed to a mêlée at 2 o'clock in the morning. That is not a workable approach, and to suggest it shows a misunderstanding of the policy.

Jeremy Wright (Rugby and Kenilworth, Conservative)

Although we shall come to the matter in a later clause, it is obvious from the scheme of the Bill that the police will have to consent to, and have an input into, the drawing up of an alcohol disorder zone. The Minister will know from her constituency, just as I do from mine, that the police often know where the irresponsible operators are, and where the responsible ones are. Surely their input will assist in answering the question that the hon. Member for East Antrim raised, and which she raises. If it is not addressed, will we not still penalise the pub operators who are doing their level best to address the problem that she describes?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that most police officers will know where the high-risk premises are; but many officers will say to him, as they have said to me, that sometimes it is difficult to determine from where the problems emanate, and establish a clear audit trail. Inevitably, if we draw a line around a designated area, there will be tension in that area between people who are responsible operators and those who are not.

The whole idea is not to end up with an alcohol disorder zone, but to implement an action plan that solves the problem. I am not interested in getting to the position in which everyone is paying their charges. I do not want to accommodate the problem, so that there is an alcohol disorder zone, we pay £100 a week and we carry on behaving appallingly. I want to have an action plan to stop such behaviour. That is why the zone is a last resort.

There is in our community a sense of collective responsibility for dealing with those problems. Where there are only one or two premises, the police should use their powers under the Licensing Act 2003 to enforce and to close. They have some good new powers in the licensing legislation, which I expect them to use. Equally, the alcohol disorder zone policy will be the incentive that drives people, in an area with a concentration of nightclubs and pubs that cause problems, to get their house in order.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey and Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

I have some problems with amendment No. 43. It states that no charge would be payable within the zone if there were no responsibility or contribution. However, as we have said, there is a wider responsibility for the group. Will the Minister provide an assurance in the Bill, not just in the document that she helpfully sent, that there will be no flat charge, and that the good will be rewarded and the bad punished, proportionate to their misbehaviour? The document says that there is a proposal to   differentiate, but it does not say enough to allay the concerns of the people who are lobbying me.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I understand the hon. Lady's pressing for a firmer commitment. There will be draft regulations. I have circulated as much information as I can, and it clearly states the Government's intention, and explains our serious effort to ensure that the charge relating to the necessary extra enforcement activity is apportioned. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth made the point that there ought to be provision for a higher charge on higher-risk premises.

We should also like to introduce a provision for discounts for people who conduct their premises properly. We are working on an industry code of good practice. When that is established, people who receive accreditation under it may well be eligible for discounts. There is provision in the Bill to develop that idea.

I hope that Members have a genuine sense that we are not implementing an unfair flat-rate charge against everybody, irrespective of their contribution. We are trying to apportion where we can. Equally, it would be hugely bureaucratic and unworkable to have the sort of scheme envisaged in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Woking. That would go against our policy in the Bill.

Amendment No. 36 would add a further category of person who could be subject to the charge, by introducing the tenant or the premises supervisor as well as the licensee. That would be inappropriate, and we are trying to aim our powers at the right people. The people who must be subject to the charge are those who can make the decisions, because we want to influence their behaviour. The licensees will have the biggest stake in the process, and they need to make the decisions. The power must be levelled at them, not at the people with day-to-day responsibilities.

Opposition amendments Nos. 39 and 40 would change the charges from those that the Secretary of State considers appropriate to those deemed to be essential. I should like to make two points. First, the amendments would deflect local authorities' energies from getting on with the job of dealing with the necessary charging scheme to considering legal definitions.

Secondly, how would the hon. Gentleman draw the line between helpful and essential charges? What would be the point of excluding helpful actions? How would one allow for funds to instigate innovatory ideas that had not been tested but that one felt could make a difference in an alcohol disorder zone? The hon. Gentleman's amendments are far too restrictive. The use of the word ''appropriate'' is preferable to the harsher test that he proposes.

Amendment No. 41 would restrict the scope of the regulations that the Secretary of State could make under clause 12, and would remove from the scope of the regulations provisions about payment, collection and enforcement of the charge. We can cover administrative matters in guidance, but we want to set them out in regulations, because we want to give effect to clause 12(10) which provides for  

''the suspension of premises licences and club premises certificates for non payment of a charge.''

These are serious matters that should properly be dealt with in the regulations, not left to the guidance.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

There are so many references to regulations. How many of those regulations are available for the Committee to look at, given that the Minister has had months to produce them? It is not satisfactory that they have not been produced, as the Committee must have the chance to debate them.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman well knows, from my letter of 11 October, that the regulations cannot be provided. In the lengthy and extensive briefing that I provided to all members of the Committee, which I hope they found useful, I tried to give the fullest possible indication—

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Forth. The Government's position is utterly shambolic. We are discussing a critical Bill with critical regulations, but we will see none of them during Committee stage. Is it within your power, Mr. Forth, to adjourn the Committee for a fortnight, or three weeks if necessary, while the Government do the job that they are meant to do, so that we can see the regulations and debate them?

Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman expresses his understandable frustration through a point of order, but that is not a matter for the Committee to deal with now. The Minister said that she would bring forth the regulations when she could. The Committee is here to consider not the regulations, but the Bill, which I hope we will continue to do.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

Thank you, Mr. Forth. I shall now deal with—

James Clappison (Hertsmere, Conservative)

Can the Minister give us any idea when the regulations might be ready? Will they be ready in time for us to debate them on Report?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I am not in a position to give that assurance, but I will endeavour to get a firmer idea of when they will be ready.

Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 relate to clause 12(9)(c), and would strengthen the wording in the Bill, from saying that we may make provision for appeals to saying that we must. I assure hon. Members that we intend to provide the normal administrative checks and balances on local authority charging that apply in other fields. We certainly do not want to set up an elaborate system of tribunals for appeals, but   will endeavour to ensure that the charges for alcohol disorder zones are the same as for other local authority charges, and that there is a system for questioning them.

Government amendment No. 79 is straightforward and practical. It allows for interest to be charged on overdue payments for alcohol disorder zones, and is another incentive for people to make those payments, in addition to the possibility that their licences could be suspended and/or revoked.

Liberal Democrat tabled amendment No. 145 seeks that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is not necessary. We can lay the regulations before Parliament and leave it open to Members to pray against them. We will, of course, consider any comments from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about procedure for the regulations, but we want to proceed using the negative resolution procedure. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green to withdraw her amendment, and for other Members not to press their amendments.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey and Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

On this occasion, I will do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 43, in clause 12, page 10, line 23, at end insert

'provided that no charges shall be paid, or be payable, by any persons or clubs unless the local authority reasonably believes that such persons or clubs by their acts, or omissions, contribute to the incidence of alcohol-related crime or disorder in the locality.'.—[Mr. Malins.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 13.