Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 66:"Page 11, line 1, leave out ““only””" The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 67. The effect of the amendments would be to ensure that the two types of licensed premises set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) would be exempt from any charges imposed by virtue of the clause. The first type would be those premises whose principal use did not involve the sale of alcohol; and the second would be those premises where the availability of alcohol is not the main purpose for which individuals enter them. The way that I drafted the amendments means that they should not fall foul of the Minister’s objections on the previous amendment, Amendment No. 64. Indeed, his answer to my noble friend Lord Bridgeman was that premises would be exempted anyway, if the availability of alcohol was not the main reason why people went into them—or, I think that he said, stayed in them. At this late hour, that conjures up some interesting ideas about what they might be doing. My argument is that it is wrong to leave it to the discretion of the Secretary of State to make such exemptions. There seems no reason to include such premises in the charging scheme. The Minister has already said that they will not be included. If not, why not? If so, why not state that in the Bill? The removal of the word ““only”” in the amendment also has the advantage of allowing the possibility of creating further exemptions over and above those set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). Surely that is a sensible way to proceed. There must be the possibility of other exemptions, if it becomes demonstrably clear that certain licensed premises are unjustly caught up in the Bill without good reason or are disproportionately burdened. It is right that regulation should be able to take account of those circumstances. This is one of the key concerns of the licensed trade. The representative organisations, such as the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores, support the amendments, so they therefore have the backing of a significant number of stakeholders who could be affected should the Bill become law in its present form. I now find myself in horror because I used the word ““stakeholders””. Ten years of Labour government have clearly had some dreadful effect on me. I shall take the medicine tonight and get rid of that. Goodness me. Those bodies, which represent responsible licensed businesses, support any measure to tackle violent crime and alcohol disorder. They have made that clear throughout all their discussions both with me and, I know, with the Government. They have actively supported involuntary codes of conduct and schemes to encourage responsible drinking and the retailing of alcohol. However, they are unanimous in voicing their concern that Chapter 2 would have a disproportionate effect on the retail sector without actually tackling the root causes of the issue. I beg to move.