| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness is right that our discussion on alcohol disorder zones has fleshed out some important elements. It is right that we should take the time between now and Report to reflect on some of those points. What I have liked about our debates today is that they have been pragmatic and practically focused, because that is the intention behind the legislation. I am grateful for the approach that has been adopted by both opposition Benches on this range of issues.
I shall deal with the amendments in turn. The noble Lord's first two amendments—although I know that he said that he was not too bothered about Amendment No. 76—focus on the first test, which establishes the link between the consumption of alcohol and the level of proof that is required to establish that the criteria for designation have been satisfied. On the general test—and I repeat the point that I have been making all evening—alcohol disorder zones are an intervention of the last resort. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, recognises and understands that; he took us carefully through the process by which we arrive at the point at which local authorities or the police might want to seek to have an alcohol disorder zone put in place. We want to make it clear that it is the end of a process to try to foster and encourage that sense of collective responsibility to which I have referred.
We want the power to be used as flexibly as possible. The Bill provides the overall framework. Clause 16 provides for guidance to be issued on the administration of alcohol disorder zones. Subsection (2) places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the guidance sets out the alternative steps that should be taken prior to proposing an alcohol disorder zone. Subsection (4) places a duty on local authorities to follow the guidance. I envisage that the guidance will set out in clear terms the alternative interventions to deal with alcohol-related crime and disorder, including tackling those incidents that are not persistent—although the fact that incidents are persistent is one of the things that will cause the local authority and the police, acting together, to consider moving towards an alcohol disorder zone. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, we would not see a single incident as the trigger for such an approach—although one incident might highlight a generality of problems.
26 Apr 2006 : Column 247
We do not need the reference to "persistent and repeated" for which the first amendment provides. The second amendment relates to establishing a link to the levels of crime or disorder required to trigger an alcohol disorder zone. We would not want to lose the general link with the consumption of alcohol in the locality. The policy that we have adopted in our approach is about securing collective responsibility for the problem across the alcohol trade locally, in both the off-licence trade and the on-licence trade. We have to accept that it is often not possible to establish a clear audit trail for the problem in the public space back to individual premises. Again, I do not see the need to lose the link between disorder, anti-social behaviour and alcohol. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his first two amendments.
Amendment No. 77 provoked a discussion about locality. The noble Lord seeks to require that the levels of nuisance and annoyance to members of the public that are included as criteria for the designation of the locality occur precisely in the locality. He is concerned that such activities and incidents of nuisance and annoyance should occur in that locality, rather than somewhere adjacent to it. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment and I can reassure the noble Lord that the zone is to be used where the nuisance and annoyance to the public are most likely to be repeated. Where that is the case, the area will be within the designated zone.
The key issue is displacement. Problems caused in licensed premises in one area may manifest themselves much more clearly in an adjacent area. I have in my mind an image of a parade of shops or perhaps even a whole street, and within that street are a number of different premises—off-licences, public houses, clubs and bars and so on. In some places, it is likely that the incidents which cause the nuisance will take place a little way from where the alcohol is purchased and in a place where the alcohol is consumed.
9.45 pm
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord and try to deal with the illustration given by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. What is envisaged in Clause 13 is an action plan, and the costs of that fall on the licensees. If the disorder does not happen where the licensed premises are located, how can the licensees respond to an action plan somewhere else? What are they supposed to do? You cannot expect the licensees to pay for policing the whole town.
For some reason or another, I keep thinking of St James's Street in Brighton when I talk about this issue. The people in St James's Street, who may be perfectly respectable licensees, cannot be responsible for what happens in the railway station, the bus station or a taxi rank somewhere else in town. They cannot send their bouncers, or whatever they have in St James's Street, to sort out these problems; nor, indeed, can they pay for private security firms to roam the whole of Brighton. That is the problem.
26 Apr 2006 : Column 248
I can understand an action plan which says, "You will not serve someone who is drunk; you will remove them from the premises. You will make sure that your premises are properly monitored by security people who are qualified", and matters of that sort. But I cannot see a private army, paid for by licensees, trying to police another area. That, to my mind, is the problem with the words "or near".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord raises some important issues. Of course, one would not expect the licensees to contribute through the alcohol disorder zone to policing another far-away part of the town. But one might expect the charges raised as a result of the alcohol disorder zone to contribute towards the cost of extra policing in a street or open space close by. Or one might expect licensees, for example, to help through the alcohol disorder zone fund to pay for taxi marshals in an adjacent street or on part of the main streets close to where the licensed premises are located. I think that that is a reasonable expectation of what an alcohol disorder zone charging regime would contribute towards.
The local authority will want to consider very carefully—no doubt it will be part of detailed considerations and consultations locally—designating a zone which is very tightly drawn and which includes the area where the nuisance is most likely to be repeated. That is how we see it working as a matter of practical application.
Amendment No. 78 deals with other measures that should be properly considered before getting to the point at which an alcohol disorder zone is identified as the appropriate remedy. The noble Lord referred to the Licensing Act 2003, and said that those provisions should be fully used to ensure that individual premises have appropriate operating schedules to deal with potential problems.
I agree in general with that approach. The guidance to the provision will set out explicitly that alcohol disorder zones are a measure of last resort, and the circumstances in which they should be used. As an example, where there is a problem with individual premises, of course it would be more sensible to use a licence review against those premises than to declare it an alcohol disorder zone. As I said, alcohol disorder zones are about getting licensees to adopt collective responsibility. The Licensing Act 2003 greatly strengthens local authorities' hands against individual premises, and the alcohol disorder zones policy adds to that and provides them with a valuable tool to establish that collective responsibility as a matter of principle.
I do not think that the noble Lord's amendments are necessary, nor do they add a further layer of clarification, which we can fairly say is already there in the Bill, and will be there as a product of the regulations and guidance that we shall consult on later in the process. I understand the sentiments but our approach makes more sense. I hope that my comments have also satisfied some of the concerns about the way in which the scheme will be constructed.
26 Apr 2006 : Column 249
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I thank the Minister for his response. I shall read what he said and consider the matter further. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 76 to 78 not moved.]
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 79:
The noble Viscount said: I move the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Anelay and myself. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has obligingly set out the timetable in the process by which an area can be designated as an alcohol disorder zone, so I can speak much more briefly to this amendment.
Amendment No. 79 would speed up the process by ensuring that the draft action plan is published at the same time as the proposal to designate is issued. That way, stakeholders will be able to see the action plan at the consultation stage and can make representations about it rather than being presented with a fait accompli after the opportunity to make representations has passed.
In another place, the Minster agreed with that in principle but stated in Committee on 20 October that the Government would spell out,
what a proposal to designate could contain. She also gave a categoric assurance that that,
"will include a requirement to publish the proposed content of the action plan at the consultation stage".
"that that would be a proper way of proceeding, and better than specifying everything in the Bill".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 20/10/06; col. 146.]
It will come as no surprise to know that we do not agree with that. Our amendment shows how straightforward it would be to include such a requirement on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |