Violent Crime Reduction Bill
9:15 am
John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)
I have listened with great care to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Woking and have considerable sympathy with them. I shall listen to the Minister’s response before deciding what to do. Amendments No. 290 and 291 are along the same lines but address a different problem. The purpose of my amendment is to find out who is to be exempted and how the exemptions should work. I am grateful to the British Hospitality Association for the briefing that it has provided for me, and I must also say that I am a past panel chairman of the association so I have a little bit of an interest.
The extremely helpful explanatory notes on subsection (7) state that it
“is to ensure that premises such as restaurants, cinemas and gyms, which do not significantly contribute to the problems of alcohol-related violence and disorder, do not have to pay the charge.”
The BHA believes—and I believe that it is right—that the wording of the subsection does not give effect to that desire, because of the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (a) reads:
“the principal use to which the premises are put does not consist in or include the sale or supply of alcohol”
and paragraph (b) reads
“the availability of alcohol on those premises is not the main reason, or one of the main reasons”.
The words “or include” in paragraph (a) and
“or one of the main reasons”
in paragraph (b) mean that the subsection does not achieve what the guidance notes state. I know that the Minister has been in correspondence with a number of people in the industry and that the Government intend that hotels, gyms and so on, which are clearly not part of the problem, should be exempted.
However, from discussions that the association has had with the Minister’s officials, it appears that the exemptions will be set through guidance, presumably issued under clause 16. The association’s fear is that the guidance will be in conflict with subsection (7), and that it will be open to local authorities not to take cognisance of that guidance, but to proceed to include hotels.
My amendment would leave out the words “or include” in paragraph (a) and the words
“or one of the main reasons”.
in paragraph (b). That would clarify the subsection, and enable the Bill to deliver what the Government have stated that they wish to achieve. My amendment is not in any way contrary to the Government’s aims, but there is genuine concern in the industry that as the legislation is currently drafted, what we all seek to achieve will not be achieved. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarification.