I think that that is almost an admission of guilt. Anyway, it is not relevant.
The intention behind Amendment No. 66 is to allow for more exemptions to be included in the regulations to be made under the Bill. The amendment would insert into the Bill a requirement to include in regulation the exemption detailed in Clause 6. Taken together, the amendments would clearly open the door to a whole host of further exemptions, in addition to that in Clause 6.
As I said earlier, I understand why Members of the Committee might want to offer up such exemptions, but I cannot accept the amendments. It is important that we use the policy as an encouragement to a collective form of responsibility. I know that that sense of collective responsibility does not always make people on the opposition Benches entirely happy. It is an important principle, but I do not think that there is yet a common understanding between us that alcohol disorder zones are an instrument of last resort, as we believe, and that they are there as part of the general encouragement of such a collective responsibility. This principle could be eroded if we were to accept the amendments, and I do not think that that is in the best interests of the operation of the policy. By including it in the regulations, a plethora of exemptions would allow premises to avoid paying the charge. That brings a problem with it, because the fewer the premises that pay the charge, the higher the charge is likely to be. The charge must therefore be shared reasonably; such terms are more desirable.
I can, however, give assurances that the exemption in Clause 12(6) will be included in the regulations, and that guidance will be issued on the application of the exceptional clause. So there is the opportunity to flesh out more of what we mean by this. The noble Baroness says that too much is being left to another time in terms of regulations and to another place in terms of guidance, but that is the sensible way in which to deal with such issues of detail. I am sure that what I have said will not satisfy noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, but that is our approach to this, and I hope that at least my reassurance will encourage them not to press their amendments at this stage.
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bassam of Brighton
(Labour)
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 c236-7 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:52:50 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317644
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317644
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317644