| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
26 Apr 2006 : Column 237
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I have always thought so highly of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, but I shall have to review my opinion, as he is the source of the word, which I shall not repeat.
I am grateful to the Minister, even though he says no again. But he has given an assurance at the Dispatch Box that the exemptions in the two subsections will be included in the regulations. I shall consult the wine trade, the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores between now and Report to see if they feel that that assurance is sufficiently strong for them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I should add that we would expect them to be party to the consultations, so they will have the opportunity to make their views known through that process, too.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: That is a very helpful addition. The Minister has, of course, taken us to task, saying that the Government have this high-minded approach to collective responsibility. Well, come down off the mountain; we agree with collective responsibility, but it is a case of how one defines responsibility and for what, and to what extent it is fair to expect individuals to be responsible for the group. One must recall that the licensed trade has taken some highly responsible steps towards policing, in the loosest sense, their own trade. The Minister will know of all the examples around the country of the licensed trade even working with local authorities to move a taxi rank or a bus stop so that people coming out of licensed premises will not gather and perhaps get into more difficulty than they should. Very sensible, proactive steps have been taken. There is a feeling out there that the work of these responsible traders has not necessarily been recognised, and that they will be hammered because of the lack of activity by others. I know that we shall come back to that theme.
When the Minister talks about collective responsibility, he must also bear in mind that the Government themselves are exempting some groups from that collective responsibility. That must mean that people will say, "Why not me, too?". I accept the Minister's assurance tonight so far as it goes but, given that the amendments came from outside bodies, it is only right that I should consult them to see if the assurance is sufficient. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67 to 70 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 71:
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 71, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 96 to 100 inclusive. Given the arbitrary nature of the way in which charges for alcohol disorder zones might be imposed, it seems extraordinary that the setting out of the appeals process has been left to regulations. There seems to be a considerable lapse in attention to detail
26 Apr 2006 : Column 238
in this particular part of the Bill. We believe that it is fundamentally important that an individual who is held liable to pay certain charges is able to appeal that decision and appeal the rate at which he is being charged. At present, we have not been given the opportunity to look at exactly what that appeals process will be. There is a need for a proper check on the broad powers being conferred on local authorities through the alcohol disorder zones scheme, but at present it is being left to the Secretary of State to create that process by regulations without the level of scrutiny that we should have at this stage. Exactly what is the appeals process that the Government intend to put in place?
9 pm
My proposed new clauses suggest a method by which a licence holder might appeal against the designation of a zone in its entirety or regarding a specific area within the zone. Although Clause 12(9) makes provision for appeals relating to the payment and enforcement of the charge—in effect, against the charging provisions—no system is proposed by which one can challenge the designation itself. A business, or indeed a group of businesses, might well be affected by the designation terms of revenue as well as by the actual payment of the charges. It might be that people will be deterred from coming into an alcohol disorder zone—for example, to eat at a family restaurant—because of the negative connotations that such a designation may carry.
Therefore, we believe that it would be sensible to provide for a process that allows such an appeal to take place—and is guaranteed to allow such an appeal—rather than exposing local authorities to the possibility of judicial review proceedings every time a designation is challenged. We hope that the Minister is able to accept our proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We strongly support the introduction of a proper appeals system on the face of the Bill. It should be remembered that the decisions that are to be made under Clause 12(8) will be decisions made by a local authority. It would be hugely expensive to have to take those decisions on fairly minor matters—liability for charges and rate of charges, for example—by way of judicial review. The setting up of a tribunal, on the other hand, which could quickly gather an expertise on these matters, would much improve anything that the Bill so far contains.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendments seek to create a right of appeal for licence holders against the designation of an alcohol disorder zone to a bespoke alcohol disorder zone tribunal. We have designed an alcohol disorder zone process to be flexible and speedy to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder with the minimum of delay. At the same time, we have provided key checks and balances to be put into the process. They comprise a joint local authority/police trigger for an alcohol disorder zone in which each party must consent to designation. So they have to be satisfied that it is right and give their consent. They also include
26 Apr 2006 : Column 239
a formal consultation process lasting 28 days; an eight-week period following that to allow the commencement of the action plan—though it can be shorter if it is clear that there is no intention to implement the plan; and a formal three-monthly review of designation. There are a number of elements to the process.
Additionally, Clause 12(9) provides that regulations may make provision for appeals relating to the payment, collection and enforcement of the charge and liability for payment of the charge. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that it does not seem entirely sensible that each time there is a challenge, a judicial review has to be sought. That is inappropriate. A more workable scheme than a tribunal, an appeals process like a tribunal, makes a lot of sense. We have said that we will work with those involved—whom you might call "stakeholders", if you are the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, or "the affected alcohol community". There are lots of descriptions at hand. We are working with this body of able folk to see how we can best deliver this and link it into existing local government procedures. So we are consulting with those who should be consulted. I think that that is the best way of achieving it. That will provide a robust set of checks and balances, without the need for building in a potentially lengthy appeals process, whether it is set out on the face of the Bill or through regulations.
I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord about appeals. However, I think we have set up a situation which provides for sufficient checks and balances, without the need for a whole new tier of bureaucracy to determine appeals. We have to set that elaborate process on one side. Clause 12(9) makes provision for a system of appeals for a range of things relating to payment, collection and so on, which I referred to earlier. I do not think that we are going as far as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord want, but we have put in place a process of robust checking, and we have made the provisions I have referred to in Clause 12(9). I hope that that will prove to be satisfactory. We will, of course, listen with great care to the stakeholders in this part of the legislation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I take issue with the use of the word bureaucracy. This is not about setting up a bureaucracy but about setting up an independent tribunal to determine what could be very important issues to a particular licensee. I appreciate that there will be consultation, but the licensee may find himself within a zone, paying charges that are determined for him, without any right of appeal to an independent tribunal. I do not know what will be produced by the consultations that the noble Lord is having with the industry. But if it were some sort of higher committee of the local authority, then that would obviously be quite unacceptable. From the point of view of ensuring that this Bill is put into effect with a sense of fairness
26 Apr 2006 : Column 240
and justice, I think it is worth while that there should be an independent appeals system such as that set out in Amendment No. 96 and thereafter.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |