Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I agree that it is useful to debate this area, which I readily accept could be considered by some as contentious. I understand why these probing amendments have been moved. They rightly focus on the arrangements for administering the charge, which is raised under Clause 12. Amendment No. 61 would provide for the charge to be paid to ““local authorities”” in addition to a local authority. We do not see the need to make the amendment. The Bill does not enable alcohol disorder zones to straddle local authority boundaries. But it has to be recognised, and it would be quite right, that two adjacent local authorities designate areas as alcohol disorder zones where those areas are contiguous to each other. In that situation, each local authority would collect charges from the premises in its area; for example, in cases where there is a night-time economy centre which straddles two local authority areas, as is likely in many of our towns and cities. If the amendment was aimed at areas where there are two-tier authorities, then again we think the amendment is unnecessary. If the county council provides additional services to an alcohol disorder zone, the local authority would designate the alcohol disorder zone and collect the charge and pay a proportion on it accordingly. However, as has been well trailed before this discussion, this is an issue on which I can offer assurance. The assurance is that those situations will be covered in the guidance on alcohol disorder zones. I think it is right that they are, because there will need to be some detail within those guidance notes. Amendment No.62 would insert a cap on the level of the compulsory charge in an alcohol disorder zone. The amendment would set that at the monthly equivalent of 3 per cent of premises’ annual rateable value. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue of a cap on the compulsory charge in an alcohol disorder zone. I think that he mentioned at Second Reading the matter of when it was discussed in another place and my right honourable friend Hazel Blears, the Minister of State, undertook to consider the matter further. The noble Lord touched on a number of issues. The charge needs to be set at a meaningful level which is sufficient to recoup local agencies’ costs in mounting effective enforcement interventions based on what is required to properly reduce crime and disorder in any given locality. At the same time we take the view that the charge needs to be enforceable and payable. We are not about the business of setting charges at a level which forces people to cease trading. We do not want the charge to act as a disincentive to business formation and to those who are in the business of providing the services of a pub, a club, an off-licence and so on. We firmly take the view that the charge needs to reflect the last-resort nature of alcohol disorder zones and help incentivise local action. We need to bear in mind the relative costs of the type of excellent voluntary arrangements currently in place in some areas, which were helpfully referred to at Second Reading. Having considered this, we believe that we should not put a cap on the charge on the face of the Bill. I do not believe that a cap, arbitrarily set, will deliver what we are looking for here. However, when we debate the regulations, we will need to ensure that we build in sufficient flexibility to enable them to meet local requirements. We will nevertheless need to provide checks and balances to meet what is intended. I understand the concern. I do not know whether setting the charge at 3 per cent of annual rateable value is right. I am not sure whether the noble Lord thinks it is absolutely right. But there could be a problem if we set a level in legislation. We need flexibility. That is where I think secondary legislation has a value, not least because it means that between now and then we can talk to the local authorities and to the trade and get it right. The important thing is that we get the principles right, that it does not act as a disincentive, and that it acts as an encouragement to get collective action at work—in most cases short of alcohol disorder zones—in areas where there is a commonly perceived problem with unruliness and disorderly behaviour. Amendment No. 65 would strengthen the link between those rates of charges and the charging power at subsection (1). Again, this is not an amendment that we think is necessary. It is very clear that Clause 12 deals with regulations for the power to impose charges in alcohol disorder zones. Amendment No. 70, which would remove subsection (8) from Clause 12, provides that the Secretary of State may simply make regulations about the payment, collection, enforcement, liability and appeals concerning the charge. I am slightly puzzled by the amendment because I do not see how it would confer any benefit other than to leave a considerable gap in the scope of the regulations without trying to compensate for it anywhere else in the Bill. While we accept that this is an important debate, we do not think it appropriate to deal with the detail in the Bill itself. It is right that we should consult further and fine-tune the detail so that we end up with a charging regime that reflects the importance of recouping local agency costs, encourages participation in all actions which fall short of creating an alcohol disorder zone and acknowledges the fact that such zones are in essence a measure of last resort designed to encourage collective action against a commonly perceived problem with alcohol-related disorder. For the reasons I have gone through in my response, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.