moved Amendment No. 61:"Page 10, line 17, after first ““authority”” insert ““or local authorities””"
The noble Lord said: With a sense of relief, we move from drinking banning orders to alcohol disorder zones, an area which is no less contentious in all sorts of ways. The noble Lord will recall that at Second Reading we supported the basic concept behind alcohol disorder zones. It is a proper mechanism for recovering the costs of policing particular areas which cause trouble from the licensed premises that are the focus of the trouble. A number of issues are left to be determined. On the one hand, we have to determine how much those charges should be and, on the other, we have to determine whether everyone who holds a licence in a particular zone should pay. Another issue is how long those alcohol disorder zones should continue. We all recognise that there is a great temptation for a local authority to see this as an additional tax on business within the area affected.
Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 address the question of how much. It is suggested that instead of imposition by a local authority, it should be ““or local authorities””, in the event that that zone falls within the area of two local authorities. More importantly, it is also suggested that the charges to be paid to the authority for each month should be limited. The amendment, which at this stage is probing, is that the charge should be at an annual rate of no greater than 3 per cent of a premises’ rateable value. We think it is important that businesses should not be sunk by an alcohol disorder zone. It may not assist their business to find their neighbourhood designated as such. Of course, it may be within a licensee’s own hands to do something about it. But the charge on the business should not so affect the profits of that business that it cannot continue. Therefore, this is a suggestion that we put forward for the Government’s consideration as a limitation on the charge.
Amendment No.65 is consequential, while Amendment No.70, which is to leave out subsection (8), deals with the payment, collection and enforcement of charges and the determination of questions about liability. No doubt that is a matter which will be subject to further debate. For the moment, this group of amendments is concerned with maintaining a limit on the cost to business. I beg to move.
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 26 April 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Violent Crime Reduction Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
681 c205-6 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:54:01 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317627
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317627
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317627