Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I suppose that this chapter is probably where lies most legislative disorder. In all the amendments, I am trying to separate the chaff from the wheat, the good from the bad, and the honest and good landlord from the misbehaving landlord. We have concerns about the one-for-all and all-for-one approach in the imposition of alcohol disorder zones. We have been promised that guidance will make a differential in charging between the good and the bad, but as yet we have not seen formal guidance of any clarity that would allow us to have confidence that there will be a sufficient differential so that good landlords are not penalised. There should be cause and effect, and punishment should be set out in the Bill. There seems to be more emphasis on location than on behaviour. I am not sure that that is a good principle or approach in terms of charging. We need a more causal link to establish whether premises or a pub have contributed to alcohol-related disturbances. Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 would establish a causal link between the alcohol-related disturbance and the licensed premises, be they a club, a pub or whatever. If responsible establishments are caught in an area where ADZs are brought into being and those responsible find that they have to pay the charge, that is not only unfair but is a disincentive for licence holders to maintain good standards, when they are effectively to be penalised by the irresponsibility of other establishments. This approach appears to be somewhat contrary to the Government’s consultation paper, ““Drinking Responsibly””, which has very much targeted responsible premises. As for amendment No. 33, as I have said, there needs to be a more causal link. For example, an area might border an alcohol disorder zone. That area might be blamed for disorders that occurred when it had nothing to do with the adjacent area. However, it could be included in an exemption. The adjacent area would bear the brunt of the result of drunken and disorderly behaviour. In stepping out of an ADZ one might go down a road along which there is a quiet pub where citizens are drinking responsibly until various times of the night, causing no disturbance. However, people coming from the ADZ make a noise and are riotous, and therefore are responsible for an extension of the zone. Through no fault of their own, the good pub owner becomes subject to charges. The terms of amendment No. 41 were not even considered in Committee. They raise an interesting point to explore with the Minister. It reads:"““the holder of the premises licence has implemented and taken the steps necessary to make the designation of the premises unnecessary, in accordance with””" an agreed"““action plan set up by the local authority or the local chief officer of police.””" Once consulted on and agreed by the local authority and police officers, some establishments will comply with the eight-week action plan and spend money to facilitate and adopt it. However, they might get to the end of the eight weeks and find that others in the group have not adhered to it and have not undertaken the steps agreed. The local authority will then impose the ADZ and charge those establishments that had done everything that was asked of them. They will be punished alongside those who did not follow the plan. That is inordinately unfair and was not considered in Committee. I hope that the Government take that on board.