Violent Crime Reduction Bill

: The Minister talks about practicality. I have two main points. First, since the Minister was involved in local government in his part of the world, the local authority has taken on the responsibility of dealing with licensed premises, so he has no experience of the expertise that they are building up in looking at such premises. Secondly, under subsection (6), the local authority has to make a judgment regarding these exemptions anyway. It is, presumably, for the local authority to decide whether,"““the principal use to which the premises are put does not consist in or include the sale or supply of alcohol””." Equally, it is for it to decide whether,"““the availability of alcohol on those premises””," is or,"““is not the main reason””." These days, what happens is that the local authority convenes hearings at which people give evidence. There is, then, no reason why a local authority could not come to a decision on an evidence-based approach, either along the lines suggested by the noble Viscount, that,"““the local authority is satisfied on the basis of evidence that it is reasonable””," or on the basis that I have put forward in Amendment No. 69, that,"““the sale of alcohol has not contributed to alcohol-related disorder””." In any event, whether it be the Government’s original drafting, the Viscount’s amendment or my amendments, the local authority is required to make a judgment and to come to a decision on whether exemption applies. As for the supply of alcohol, Amendment No. 68 premises that,"““the supply of alcohol is not permitted between the hours of 8pm and 8am””." I said that that was an arbitrary time, but there is nothing wrong with encouraging licensed premises, such as an off-licence within an alcohol disorder zone, to tailor the hours that it is open to such a provision. Instead of opening until 9 o’clock and paying a charge, they open until 8 o’clock. Neither do I accept the argument that if a person starts off sober in the off-licence and, having consumed three or four cans of lager, goes on to drink in a variety of other establishments, ending up in a nightclub, the off-licence at which he got his original drink, while sober, should pay the same as the club, which serves him alcohol when he is clearly drunk. There is a point when it can be said, ““This licensed premises is less involved in creating disorder within this particular zone than other licensed premises””. It is only fair that a distinction should be made. I do not propose the final mechanism, but there should be one that permits distinctions to be made.