The amendments seek to create a right of appeal for licence holders against the designation of an alcohol disorder zone to a bespoke alcohol disorder zone tribunal. We have designed an alcohol disorder zone process to be flexible and speedy to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder with the minimum of delay. At the same time, we have provided key checks and balances to be put into the process. They comprise a joint local authority/police trigger for an alcohol disorder zone in which each party must consent to designation. So they have to be satisfied that it is right and give their consent. They also include a formal consultation process lasting 28 days; an eight-week period following that to allow the commencement of the action plan—though it can be shorter if it is clear that there is no intention to implement the plan; and a formal three-monthly review of designation. There are a number of elements to the process.
Additionally, Clause 12(9) provides that regulations may make provision for appeals relating to the payment, collection and enforcement of the charge and liability for payment of the charge. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that it does not seem entirely sensible that each time there is a challenge, a judicial review has to be sought. That is inappropriate. A more workable scheme than a tribunal, an appeals process like a tribunal, makes a lot of sense. We have said that we will work with those involved—whom you might call ““stakeholders””, if you are the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, or ““the affected alcohol community””. There are lots of descriptions at hand. We are working with this body of able folk to see how we can best deliver this and link it into existing local government procedures. So we are consulting with those who should be consulted. I think that that is the best way of achieving it. That will provide a robust set of checks and balances, without the need for building in a potentially lengthy appeals process, whether it is set out on the face of the Bill or through regulations.
I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord about appeals. However, I think we have set up a situation which provides for sufficient checks and balances, without the need for a whole new tier of bureaucracy to determine appeals. We have to set that elaborate process on one side. Clause 12(9) makes provision for a system of appeals for a range of things relating to payment, collection and so on, which I referred to earlier. I do not think that we are going as far as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord want, but we have put in place a process of robust checking, and we have made the provisions I have referred to in Clause 12(9). I hope that that will prove to be satisfactory. We will, of course, listen with great care to the stakeholders in this part of legislation.
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 c238-9 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:52:49 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317650
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317650
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317650