Violent Crime Reduction Bill

It may indeed be a difficult offence to investigate and bring charges, which is clearly why the Government have made it so much easier by giving us the new offence of doing it three times. Of course, that will ease the position, and the hon. Lady’s undoubtedly sincere doubts about the ability to enforce the law will be eased by the fact that, now that it is an offence to do it three times, it will be a matter of great simplicity for the police force. I merely wonder in amendment No. 12 whether a custodial sentence for that very serious offence should be inserted in the Bill. I shall bring my remarks to a close by saying that those who are engaged in the wine, spirit and pub world are universally concerned and worried—very properly so—about the whole concept of alcohol disorder zones and would undoubtedly support my proposition that the charges should be imposed only where there is an element of guilt. The Campaign for Real Ale was one of the first to write to me saying that the zones might"““inhibit moves towards a more responsible drinking environment by treating””," as the Bill does,"““all licensees the same regardless of steps taken to encourage responsible drinking.””" CAMRA, like many others, believes that there should be discounts for well-run community public houses. Justice, which is a very respected organisation, is again"““concerned that these zones discriminate insufficiently between premises that are a cause of alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder and other premises that merely happen to be in the same locality.””" It is concerned about clause 12(7)(b), which provides that"““premises whose main purpose is the sale of alcohol may not be exempted from charges.””" It believes that"““those premises that are not contributing to offending behaviour should be exempt from charges." It is also right in saying that"““premises for which exemptions are allowed by clause 12(7) may include those that are contributing substantially to disorder—there may even be legal argument as to whether nightclubs are included.””" I hope that the Minister will comment on that. I had a long meeting with Tesco, which represents several people interested in the supermarket trade. It, like many others, is extremely responsible in its approach to the sale of alcohol. There is a strong argument that such supermarkets should be excluded from the provisions altogether, because the main purpose of entering them is not to buy alcohol. The Government’s assertion that off-licence shops and supermarkets are a significant cause of alcohol-fuelled disorder is not good because their consultation in January conceded that any causal link between the behaviour of an individual and off-sales of alcohol was ““tenuous””. The British Retail Consortium is among other bodies that have added their objections to the concept. It talks about its attitude towards responsible retailing and expresses concern about the absence of an appeal. Interestingly, it points out that"““this legislation applies to all retailers who hold a licence to sell alcohol. This would include shops such as John Lewis, Boots and Next who sell alcohol at promotional times of the year but are in no way connected with the problem of alcohol fuelled violence.””" Will the Minister confirm whether such premises would be exempt? The Wine and Spirit Trade Association, which is a responsible body, says:"““We are concerned that the introduction of alcohol disorder zones . . . will have unintended consequences.””" It says that the zones will"““penalise small businesses on the basis of their location and will levy charges on responsible business to pay for less-conscientious retailers.””" It feels strongly about the matter. Apparently, Home Office officials have made it absolutely clear that"““all restaurants and hotel bars will be exempt from charges””." Will the Minister confirm whether the Home Office has said that? If so, is it wise? A principal objection is the catch-all and unjust nature of alcohol disorder zone provisions. I repeat again that the Association of Chief Police Officers opposes the concept. The British Hospitality Association is worried on behalf of restaurants, cinemas and gyms. It is concerned about the unfairness of many of the provisions that face it. Amendment No. 18, which addresses charges in alcohol disorder zones, would ensure that we include in the Bill at least a reference to the fact that payment should be made by those who are culpable, rather than those who are not. The rest of my amendments draw the House’s attention to the fact, which must by now be absolutely plain, that clauses 12 and 13 are riddled with uncertainty and vagueness. The Minister has a duty to the House to put us straight on exactly what she means.