Violent Crime Reduction Bill

In contrast to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), whose contributions in Committee I respected, I view the Liberal Democrats’ amendments favourably. They draw our attention to an important aspect of the alcohol disorder zones, which is the basic unfairness of blanket coverage across a locality instead of targeting premises that are more culpable than others. Clause 12 creates the power to impose charges on licence holders, but it is vague and uncertain. I cannot see how the House can properly be expected to debate the clause when it contains so many references to the Secretary of State making regulations on important matters. I may have missed something, but I do not think that I have seen details of those important regulations. For example, clause 12(2) states:"““The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a local authority””—" to do something. Clause 12(4) states:"““Regulations under this section fixing the rates of charges may fix different rates for different descriptions””." How wise can we be about the rates that might be fixed? Clause 12(7) states:"““Regulations providing for a discount . . . may make a discount””—" in certain circumstances. We have not seen those regulations. Clause 12(8) states:"““The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about . . . the payment, collection and enforcement of charges.””" I do not know whether the Secretary of State has made those regulations yet. If he has, I hope that someone will draw them to my attention, because the House needs to look at them carefully. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us when the regulations will be published. Can we be sure that they will be available for debate in the other place? May we have a date for the production of the regulations? The vagueness and uncertainty of clause 12, coupled with what may be a basic unfairness, trouble my party, and that is why the Liberal Democrat amendments are commendable. I tabled amendments Nos. 17, 18, 15, 16, 8, 7, 9 and 12. It may well be the case that we will wish to test the opinion of the House on amendment No. 18, which addresses the fundamental proposition that we face tonight. Clause 12(1) states:"““The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for the imposition by a local authority of charges to be paid to the authority for each month by””—" licence holders, in effect. Amendment No. 18 would add the words:"““provided that no charges shall be payable by any persons or clubs unless the local authority is satisfied on the basis of evidence that it is reasonable to impose charges on those particular persons or clubs.””" I seek to establish the principle that charges should be paid by licensed premises and clubs only if there is some tangible evidence that they are culpable in relation to the incidents of alcohol-related disorder in their area. It would be nonsense to penalise small and innocent licence holders when the problems have been created by others. We all know that there is immense alcohol-related disorder on the streets at night, but when it happens in our constituencies we know the premises from which the trouble emanates. The provisions would condemn sports clubs, cinemas that sell alcohol and restaurants from which no trouble emanates—or if it does, it does so rarely. They should not be punished for the problems caused by some pubs. I know a pub in the north-east of England where I tried my luck on the slot machine. I put a token into the slot, pulled the lever and instead of three cherries coming up, a sign says, ““Next drink free”” or ““Next drink half price”” or ““Sorry, next drink normal price””. Many premises contribute to the incidence of alcohol-related disorder in their area by their conduct. Happy hours are extended for a long time. Some pubs give young girls free drinks to get young boys to go into the pub. We know that pubs serve people who are drunk and who should not be given drinks in that condition But how different are they in terms of guilt for disorder in their area? How different is their position from that of other licensed premises? It is that essential element of fairness that leads me to propose strongly to the House my amendment No. 18, which requires the local authority, before imposing charges, to be"““satisfied on the basis of evidence that it is reasonable to impose charges on those particular persons or clubs””." The Government are getting extremely used to quoting the police and saying that if the police say something it must be right. I have a feeling that they said that in a debate in the House last week. The Government said ““Well, the police think so, therefore it follows that it is right.”” In that case, what do the Government say about the fact that the Association of Chief Police Officers does not like the concept of alcohol disorder zones? ACPO takes the view, as do many others, that such zones not only highlight hot spots but may in some cases exacerbate problems and attract troublemakers to an area. Will the Minister deal with what is meant by the word ““locality”” on page 11, line 43? Yet again, the meaning of the word is vague and needs to be defined carefully by the Minister. The Collins dictionary defines it as a neighbourhood or an area, but other dictionaries offer a different explanation and state that it is a site or the scene of an event. Amendment No. 17 is the forerunner to amendment No. 18. It takes an alternative approach to line 28 on page 10, requiring that in every case, before imposing charges,"““the local authority and the Secretary of State think it reasonable so to do””." I have already spoken to amendment No. 8. May I refer the Minister to subsection (6) of clause 12 which deals with the possible exemptions from charges for which regulations may provide? Again, we are no wiser about which exemptions will be laid down in relation to persons or licence holders who will be exempt from charges. The provision refers only to regulations that ““may provide””, so will the Minister discuss with us the position of non-normal, slightly unusual, licensed premises? The explanatory notes are well worth reading, as they state that the purpose of subsection (7), which deals with regulations providing for discounts or exemptions,"““is to ensure that premises such as restaurants, cinemas and gyms, which do not significantly””—" a word of some interest: what is meant by it?—"““contribute to the problems of alcohol-related violence and disorder, do not have to pay the charge.””" Can the Minister tell us what will be the position of those premises? These are key questions. Many licence holders and holders of club registration certificates will want to know whether they will be exempt and are scratching their heads about that interesting point in the explanatory notes—I appreciate that the Minister did not draft the notes personally—which states that a person may be safe if they do not ““significantly contribute”” to the problems of alcohol-related violence. May we cover restaurants, cinemas and gyms? May we also cover private clubs? In every constituency, there are a number of law-abiding private clubs, mostly sports clubs, but also political clubs with a licence where people mainly go to drink. Many premises need to be covered, so we need an explanation from the Minister of what the regulations will say. Who will be covered and who will not?