This is indeed an important clause. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, points out, the creation of the alcohol disorder zones is a contentious matter. It means that the Secretary of State can make provision enabling a local authority to make monthly charges against licence holders in their area. Although we understand that there may be a need to make such changes in theory, we are sure it will be important to protect premises which control their own premises impeccably. Why should they have to pay for the cost of dealing with the disorder caused by others who may not even be licensees? Throughout all the debates on these issues and future groups, the main thrust of our argument will be on that issue. In the meantime, this is a very useful probing amendment. It is important to know the Government’s intention on the limit of the amount that licensees might reasonably be expected to pay each month. As presently drafted, the Bill gives a wide power to impose an extra business tax, as and when a local authority pleases. We need guidance from the Government now—not just printed guidance in the future—about the kind of burden they think it will be reasonable for licensees to face.
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
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 c206 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:53:59 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317628
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317628
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317628