Clause 12 - Power to impose charges on
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
6:30 pm
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.