Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 50 to 52:


(a) in relation to a magistrates' court, means the justices' clerk; and
(b) in relation to any other court, means the clerk of the court;"
Page 9, line 26, at end insert—
""relevant local court", in relation to a drinking banning order, means a magistrates' court acting for the local justice area in which the subject normally resides;
"specified period", in relation to a drinking banning order, means the period specified in the order for the purposes of section (Duration of drinking banning orders)(1) as the period for which the order is to have effect;"
Page 9, leave out lines 27 to 36.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]

6.45 pm

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 54 to 56:


"(4) A power of the Secretary of State to make an order or regulations under this Chapter shall be exercisable by statutory instrument."
Page 10, line 4, leave out "That" and insert "Every such"

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 57:


( ) No regulations shall be made under section (Duration of drinking banning orders) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
( ) A statutory instrument containing—
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column 205
 

(a) regulations under section (Approved courses) or (Certificates of completion of approved courses), or
(b) an order under this section,
shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59, as amendments to Amendment No. 57, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 57 agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 60:

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 [Power to impose charges on licence holders etc. in zones]:

Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 61:

The noble Lord said: With a sense of relief, we move from drinking banning orders to alcohol disorder zones, an area which is no less contentious in all sorts of ways. The noble Lord will recall that at Second Reading we supported the basic concept behind alcohol disorder zones. It is a proper mechanism for recovering the costs of policing particular areas which cause trouble from the licensed premises that are the focus of the trouble. A number of issues are left to be determined. On the one hand, we have to determine how much those charges should be and, on the other, we have to determine whether everyone who holds a licence in a particular zone should pay. Another issue is how long those alcohol disorder zones should continue. We all recognise that there is a great temptation for a local authority to see this as an additional tax on business within the area affected.

Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 address the question of how much. It is suggested that instead of imposition by a local authority, it should be "or local authorities", in the event that that zone falls within the area of two local authorities. More importantly, it is also suggested that the charges to be paid to the authority for each month should be limited. The amendment, which at this stage is probing, is that the charge should be at an annual rate of no greater than 3 per cent of a premises' rateable value. We think it is important that businesses should not be sunk by an alcohol disorder zone. It may not assist their business to find their neighbourhood designated as such. Of course, it may be within a licensee's own hands to do something about it. But the charge on the business should not so affect its profits that it cannot continue. Therefore, this is a suggestion that we put forward for the Government's consideration as a limitation on the charge.

Amendment No. 65 is consequential, while Amendment No. 70, which is to leave out subsection (8), deals with the payment, collection and
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column 206
 
enforcement of charges and the determination of questions about liability. No doubt that is a matter which will be subject to further debate. For the moment, this group of amendments is concerned with maintaining a limit on the cost to business. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: This is indeed an important clause. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, points out, the creation of the alcohol disorder zones is a contentious matter. It means that the Secretary of State can make provision enabling a local authority to make monthly charges against licence holders in its area. Although we understand that there may be a need to make such changes in theory, we are sure it will be important to protect premises which control their own premises impeccably. Why should they have to pay for the cost of dealing with the disorder caused by others who may not even be licensees? Throughout all the debates on these issues and future groups, the main thrust of our argument will be on that issue. In the meantime, this is a very useful probing amendment. It is important to know the Government's intention on the limit of the amount that licensees might reasonably be expected to pay each month. As presently drafted, the Bill gives a wide power to impose an extra business tax, as and when a local authority pleases. We need guidance from the Government now—not just printed guidance in the future—about the kind of burden they think it will be reasonable for licensees to face.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I agree that it is useful to debate this area, which I readily accept could be considered by some as contentious. I understand why these probing amendments have been moved. They rightly focus on the arrangements for administering the charge, which is raised under Clause 12. Amendment No. 61 would provide for the charge to be paid to "local authorities" in addition to a local authority. We do not see the need to make the amendment. The Bill does not enable alcohol disorder zones to straddle local authority boundaries. But it has to be recognised, and it would be quite right, that two adjacent local authorities designate areas as alcohol disorder zones where those areas are contiguous to each other. In that situation, each local authority would collect charges from the premises in its area; for example, in cases where there is a night-time economy centre which straddles two local authority areas, as is likely in many of our towns and cities. If the amendment was aimed at areas where there are two-tier authorities, then again we think the amendment is unnecessary. If the county council provides additional services to an alcohol disorder zone, the local authority would designate the alcohol disorder zone and collect the charge and pay a proportion on it accordingly. However, as has been well trailed before this discussion, this is an issue on which I can offer assurance. The assurance is that those situations will be covered in the guidance on alcohol disorder zones. I think it is right that they are, because there will need to be some detail within those guidance notes.
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column 207
 

Amendment No. 62 would insert a cap on the level of the compulsory charge in an alcohol disorder zone. The amendment would set that at the monthly equivalent of 3 per cent of premises' annual rateable value. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue of a cap on the compulsory charge in an alcohol disorder zone. I think that he mentioned at Second Reading the matter of when it was discussed in another place and my right honourable friend Hazel Blears, the Minister of State, undertook to consider the matter further.

The noble Lord touched on a number of issues. The charge needs to be set at a meaningful level which is sufficient to recoup local agencies' costs in mounting effective enforcement interventions based on what is required to properly reduce crime and disorder in any given locality. At the same time we take the view that the charge needs to be enforceable and payable. We are not about the business of setting charges at a level which forces people to cease trading. We do not want the charge to act as a disincentive to business formation and to those who are in the business of providing the services of a pub, a club, an off-licence and so on. We firmly take the view that the charge needs to reflect the last-resort nature of alcohol disorder zones and help incentivise local action. We need to bear in mind the relative costs of the type of excellent voluntary arrangements currently in place in some areas, which were helpfully referred to at Second Reading. Having considered this, we believe that we should not put a cap on the charge on the face of the Bill. I do not believe that a cap, arbitrarily set, will deliver what we are looking for here. However, when we debate the regulations, we will need to ensure that we build in sufficient flexibility to enable them to meet local requirements. We will nevertheless need to provide checks and balances to meet what is intended.

I understand the concern. I do not know whether setting the charge at 3 per cent of annual rateable value is right. I am not sure whether the noble Lord thinks it is absolutely right. But there could be a problem if we set a level in legislation. We need flexibility. That is where I think secondary legislation has a value, not least because it means that between now and then we can talk to the local authorities and to the trade and get it right. The important thing is that we get the principles right, that it does not act as a disincentive, and that it encourages collective action—in most cases short of alcohol disorder zones—in areas where there is a commonly perceived problem with unruliness and disorderly behaviour.

Amendment No. 65 would strengthen the link between those rates of charges and the charging power at subsection (1). Again, this is not an amendment that we think is necessary. It is very clear that Clause 12 deals with regulations for the power to impose charges in alcohol disorder zones.

Amendment No. 70, which would remove subsection (8) from Clause 12, provides that the Secretary of State may simply make regulations about the payment, collection, enforcement, liability and appeals concerning the charge. I am slightly puzzled by
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column 208
 
the amendment because I do not see how it would confer any benefit other than to leave a considerable gap in the scope of the regulations without trying to compensate for it anywhere else in the Bill.

While we accept that this is an important debate, we do not think it appropriate to deal with the detail in the Bill itself. It is right that we should consult further and fine-tune the detail so that we end up with a charging regime that reflects the importance of recouping local agency costs, encourages participation in all actions which fall short of creating an alcohol disorder zone and acknowledges the fact that such zones are in essence a measure of last resort designed to encourage collective action against a commonly perceived problem with alcohol-related disorder.

For the reasons I have gone through in my response, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

7 pm


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page