| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 13 sets out criteria for designating an area as an alcohol disorder zone and specifies the steps that local authorities and the police must take before a zone can be so designated. The noble Viscount's amendment relates to the criteria and those steps.
The Bill provides that the local authority must be satisfied that the tests are met. The amendment seems to be aimed at making the test applied by the local authority more objective. As my noble friend Lord Borrie said, that is always a desirable practice but, in effect, we do not think that the amendment will have any impact on achieving that end.
I understand the intention behind the amendment but we have made it clear that alcohol disorder zones are an intervention of last resort. Accordingly, local authorities and the police will have to present an objective and transparent case for proposing an alcohol disorder zone. It cannot be, to use the noble Viscount's expression, made at someone's whim. There needs to be a system of proper checks and balances in place. But do we need this amendment to achieve that end? I suggest that we do not. The guidance provided for under the Bill will make specific and particular reference to the case for an alcohol disorder zone, and that is the most intelligent way to proceed. It will cover the type of evidence base within which local authorities will have to demonstrate that the criteria have been met. It is in the interests of local communities and certainly of local authorities and the police to promote that approach. In that way, those who are involved in securing the action plan will have a degree of what is sometimes described in the business as "buy-in" to the scheme.
We want an objective approach; we do not want a whimsical approach. I should have thought that given his new leader's enthusiasm for encouraging local interest, local discretion and more local powers for local authorities, the noble Viscount would have welcomed placing with local authorities a responsibility which builds on those conferred on them in the Licensing Act 2003. We on this side sometimes call this an element of new localism. That local authorities take responsibility and encourage collective responsibility is welcome. Alcohol disorder zones go a lot further down that route. That is the approach that we want to secure. I hope that the noble Viscount, having heard what I have said, will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
9.30 pm
Viscount Bridgeman: I am sorry that the word "whim" did not find favour with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. Perhaps "subjective judgment" would be more appropriate. However, I accept that the
26 Apr 2006 : Column 244
Minister's intention is for the designations to be as objective as possible. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 75:
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 78, although I shall not pursue Amendment No. 76 at this stage.
Bringing into being the machinery which the implementation of Clause 13 requires will be a lengthy process. The local authority must first of all publish the notice which sets out its proposal to designate a zone and invite representations. A period of 28 days will then elapse. At the end of that period, the local authority and the local chief officer of police must produce the action plan, publish it, and send it to licensed premises that are affected.
It is only if, eight weeks later, they decide that the action plan is not being implemented or will not be implemented at all that they can make the order as set out in Clause 13(1). The Minister has said on a number of occasions that this is an action of last resort. When one considers the lengthy—I hesitate to use the word "cumbersome"—procedure that is involved before the designation can be made, it is obvious that it will not be made lightly. Consequently, it ought not to be made on anything other than very firm grounds.
It is for that reason that Amendment No. 75 suggests that,
as referred to in Clause 13(1)(a), should be "persistent and repeated". This procedure ought not to be triggered by a single incident. That would be a perfectly reasonable amendment to make to that subsection.
Objection is taken to the suggestion that the nuisance or annoyance to members of the public does not have take place in the locality that is to be designated as an alcohol disorder zone and that an area may be so designated if the nuisance is "near that locality". I cannot see the point of designating one part of the community as an alcohol disorder zone on the basis of what has happened in another part of the community. So why use the words "or near" in the legislation? Either one deals with the issue that arises within a particular locality or one does not. I cannot see why the licensees in one part of the town should pay charges to the local authority for nuisance and annoyance which have not occurred in that locality but somewhere else. I should like an explanation for the drafting of subsection (1)(a). That is why Amendment No. 77 suggests that the words "or near" be left out.
The Bill creates many powers to deal with disorder that arises through the use of licensed premises. We suggest that the local authority should be satisfied before it goes through the procedure of making the
26 Apr 2006 : Column 245
order that every effort has been made to enforce the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003. That is the reason for Amendment No. 78.
I hope the Minister will take these proposed amendments as an attempt to be constructive and that these disorder zones will be instituted only as a measure of last resort. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: I will just refer to the words "or near", which is one part of what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has dealt with. I thought that the inclusion of those words was valuable, in that it would deal with a situation where there is an area or part of a town where a lot of drunkenness or activity that may cause concern to the public takes place; there is then a distance, maybe half a mile, to bus stops, a train service or something of that sort. There are no pubs or places for drinking in that locality, but it is near to the locality where the trouble has been caused. Surely one wants to be able to cover that.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I will certainly want to consider carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has said, but my immediate reaction is that I would be very unhappy with his interpretation being part of the Bill, as it would take collective responsibility to a level that I had not interpreted it to mean. I would be grateful if the Minister could, when he comes to respond, explain to us whether the view of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is the view of the Government. It may be that the Box can assist with that. The noble Lord has raised an interesting explanation of why "or near" might be valuable, but we will need to look at whether it really would be of value and be acceptable. I genuinely find it interesting. The issue was not raised in another place, and we will need to look at it.
Amendment No. 75 has value, because it would ensure that the problems that one wishes to address are not just a one-off event. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has said, the measure will not be triggered by a single incident. I had always assumed that the Government were trying to avoid having an alcohol disorder zone imposed as a result of a single incident. If so, why are they worrying about having an action plan and consultation? To me, this would present the case that the Government are trying to do all they can to avoid having an alcohol disorder zone imposed. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is right: one needs to make sure that the opportunity for designation after a single incident is excluded. He has performed a valuable service.
The noble Lord is also right to draw attention to the drafting of Clause 13. Paragraph (b) talks about "nuisance, annoyance or disorder". I find myself very uncomfortable with the use of the word "annoyance". That is a very low-level test, even if it is connected with alcohol consumption in the locality. It could obviously constitute something relatively trivial, like one of the usual bits of annoyance in any area: someone parking outside your premises, for example. It is on a public highway, but you do not like them doing it. Such behaviour tends to create quite a lot of antagonism, particularly if people do it on more than one
26 Apr 2006 : Column 246
occasion—it might be a persistent and repeated activity. Whether something like that, even if it is a persistent and repeated annoyance, should come within the provisions of Clause 13, I remain to be persuaded. I will be interested to hear how the Minister responds to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has raised issues that we will need to consider between now and Report. I have arranged to meet representatives of the licensed trade between now and Report to see what their general response is. We are already teasing out some particular issues that will need probing, rather than resolution on Report.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |