I have to tell the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) that I am unable to be as generous on this group of amendments as I was in earlier debates. I propose to resist every one of them.
The whole idea of alcohol disorder zones is that they will be a last resort. It is not that we think that police and local authorities should seek an ADZ in the face of one or two irresponsible premises. They should use the powers under the Licensing Act 2003 and the much strengthened powers available under our new licensing legislation to bear down on individual premises. An ADZ is designed to deal with a significant number of premises and a general problem, and the process of applying for an ADZ makes that clear. In Committee we debated the process at some length—there will be an initial proposal, then an action plan and time to implement it, and only if that does not work will the point of designating an alcohol disorder zone be reached. Just as drinking banning orders are designed to achieve behaviour change on the part of individuals, ADZs are intended to secure behaviour change on the part of licensees of licensed premises, nightclubs and other organisations. Our aim is to ensure that people take some collective responsibility for the problems that all too often beset us in our town and city centres. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made some good points about differentiation, which I shall deal with later in my speech.
Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 38 and 39 are about culpability—their aim is to make a connection between the behaviour and the charge. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) gave a most passionate explanation of the policy and made it clear that if we were to accept the amendments, ADZs would be unworkable. The note I made asks, ““Was it the gin and tonic in the cocktail lounge that caused the bad behaviour, or was it the pint of lager in the Rat and Parrot that made the people drunk and get involved in a fight later, when they were seeking a kebab or a taxi?”” It is almost impossible to ascertain which was the drink that tipped someone into committing the sort of violent crime and disorder that we want to tackle.
Having said that, we have tried to ensure that the charges that we shall introduce relate to the degree of risk emanating from individual premises and reflect as far as possible the extra services that will be provided to those premises, whether they be extra enforcement visits by the police, extra test purchasing by trading standards to determine whether alcohol is being sold to under-age youngsters, or extra street cleaning directly outside the premises to deal with the unfortunate behaviour of the patrons of those premises. A real attempt is being made to make sure that we take a bespoke approach.
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Hazel Blears
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 14 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Violent Crime Reduction Bill 2005-06.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
439 c764 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:15:17 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_274451
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_274451
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_274451