| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, from which I take two particular points. First, as I understand it, the Government accept the principle of a cap on these charges.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I cannot concede the principle of a cap, although I recognise the importance of the issue. I want to make that clear. The problem with a cap is that it is an arbitrary notion. I can see why the noble Lord has moved the amendment as he has, but I have sought to make it very clear that we will have to ensure that the charges are set sensitively and fine-tuned so as to achieve our common objectives. As the noble Lord said, he supports in principle the concept of alcohol disorder zones. He has also quite rightly raised his concerns, some of which I am sure reflect a degree of nervousness outside about the practical implementation of the scheme.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I think that that nervousness will remain after the noble Lord's last reply. I wonder whether he and his officials could give some thought to how to give an assurance that the charges will not simply go sky high and that some control will be exercised over the level of charges. As he said, I am not wedded to any particular percentage of the annual rateable value; all I suggest is a mechanism that introduces a form of control, even if the word "cap" is not acceptable.
The second thing I took from the Minister's reply is that it is not the wish of the Government to put people out of business. I am sure that when these charges are considered and calculated, the costs to a particular business of taking appropriate measures to deal with the problem will also be taken into account. It cannot be cost free to have to deal with disorder in a particular zone; otherwise no charges would be imposed. So there is a double burden of charges in the form of the charge payable to the local authority and a charge for the actual measures that the licensee wishes to take. If those are allowed to go out of control, the Government will have the undesirable consequence of businesses ceasing to trade. As a result, an area would become not
26 Apr 2006 : Column 209
just an alcohol disorder zone but a desert where you cannot get a drink. No doubt that would be even worse.
Perhaps the Minister will be able to think of a mechanism by which the charges can be controlled. I see that he is indicating his assent. On that basis I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 63:
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would remove the discretion afforded to the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations requiring local authorities to use any money raised by alcohol disorder zone charges for set purposes. It would be mandatory for such regulations to be issued.
It seems odd that this discretion has been left in the Bill. Surely the money raised by a local authority from these charges should be used to address the problems caused by alcohol disorder and not for any other purpose entirely unconnected with alcohol disorder. In theory it would still be open to the Secretary of State to specify the "other purposes" unrelated to alcohol disorder prevention, but if that is the case the Secretary of State should be the one to justify that policy decision. If what to do with the money is left to the discretion of local authorities, small and medium-sized town centre businesses may understandably feel that they are at risk of being subject to a tax that will raise income for local authorities to do with as they please rather than making a contribution to remedying an identified and specific problem. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I recognise that the amendment would strengthen the wording in Clause 12 and require the Secretary of State to specify in regulations exactly what services the moneys raised by the compulsory charge can be spent on. I see where the noble Baroness is coming from with this amendment. We also want to ensure that the money raised goes to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder, but the amendment is not necessary. The regulations will need to include the range of interventions covered by the charge and we can offer an assurance on that. The guidance will also cover the interventions which should be deployed. I do not doubt that those subjects will be covered in discussions with the police and local government associations. I also do not doubt that the associations will want to offer encouragement to their authorities on what is to be considered as best practice. We think that that approach will work best.
The noble Baroness is right to be wary of local authorities going off on a frolic of their own. We certainly do not want to see that. I understand from my political background that that can happen from time to time. But we are aiming for practical and hard-nosed measures. If we reach a point where there is an alcohol-related crime and disorder problem in an area
26 Apr 2006 : Column 210
and it is necessary to put in place an alcohol disorder zone, by that stage exactly what is required will probably be understood by the local authority, the police and in all probability by many of the local businesses—in particular those in the trade of selling alcohol. The measures will focus on the particular needs of the community concerned.
I understand the point being made in the amendment. We are at one with the noble Baroness in her objective, but this issue will be covered in regulations, guidance and no doubt, as I said, by best practice as well.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In one respect I am grateful to the noble Lord because he recognises that we have the same objective here. He has offered an assurance about what will be set out in the regulations; that is, to ensure that moneys raised are used for the specific purpose of addressing disorder linked to the need to create an alcohol disorder zone. He also made the point that my drafting would strengthen what is in the Bill. However, we are talking about two different things. The noble Lord's assurance is made with regard to the content of the regulations. My amendment would ensure that the regulations are issued.
I am acutely aware of a conversation I had earlier today with my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon, who yesterday in the course of discussions on another Bill was somewhat frustrated when she found that continual reference was made to regulations and guidance. The Opposition are a little frustrated by a series of Bills in which much is being left to regulations. I note that we have been considering the Bill for around three and a half hours now. As I forecast earlier, the words "regulations and guidance" have formed a substantial part of our vocabulary.
I am disappointed that we have reached this stage and I still do not feel that the Government have given us detailed information on how the drinking banning orders and alcohol disorder zones are to be implemented. On that basis—and only on that basis—I feel that I must now make my little protest, stamp my feet and say that I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
7.10 pm
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 63) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 96.
Addington, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Ashcroft, L.
Barker, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Bridgeman, V.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brookeborough, V.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Chidgey, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]
Craigavon, V.
Denham, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dundee, E.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Ferrers, E.
Fookes, B.
Geddes, L.
Glentoran, L.
Greenway, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Hooper, B.
Howard of Rising, L.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Jopling, L.
Kingsland, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Mancroft, L.
Marlesford, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Methuen, L.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Newby, L.
Newton of Braintree, L.
Noakes, B.
Northover, B.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Razzall, L.
Redesdale, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Roper, L.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Sharman, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Tonge, B.
Tordoff, L.
Tyler, L.
Waddington, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walmsley, B.
Walpole, L.
Acton, L.
Adams of Craigielea, B.
Adonis, L.
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Bhatia, L.
Bilston, L.
Borrie, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Burlison, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Carter of Coles, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
Dahrendorf, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Dixon, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Gould of Brookwood, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grabiner, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Hayman, B.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jones, L.
Judd, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Maxton, L.
Mitchell, L.
Moonie, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Parekh, L.
Patel, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Prosser, B.
Puttnam, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sawyer, L.
Simon, V.
Soley, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Tomlinson, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Warner, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
26 Apr 2006 : Column 212
7.20 pm
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before twenty minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |