Clause 12 - Power to impose charges on
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
Public Bill Committees, 18 October 2005, 6:15 pm
Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & 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.