Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 75:"Page 11, line 38, after ““been”” insert ““persistent and repeated””" The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 78, although I shall not pursue Amendment No. 76 at this stage. Bringing into being the machinery which the implementation of Clause 13 requires will be a lengthy process. The local authority must first of all publish the notice which sets out its proposal to designate a zone and invite representations. A period of 28 days will then elapse. At the end of that period, the local authority and the local chief officer of police must produce the action plan, publish it, and send it to licensed premises that are affected. It is only if, eight weeks later, they decide that the action plan is not being implemented or will not be implemented at all that they can make the order as set out in Clause 13(1). The Minister has said on a number of occasions that this is an action of last resort. When one considers the lengthy—I hesitate to use the word ““cumbersome””—procedure that is involved before the designation can be made, it is obvious that it will not be made lightly. Consequently, it ought not to be made on anything other than very firm grounds. It is for that reason that Amendment No. 75 suggests that,"““the nuisance or annoyance to members of the public, or a section of the public,””" as referred to in Clause 13(1)(a), should be ““persistent and repeated””. This procedure ought not to be triggered by a single incident. That would be a perfectly reasonable amendment to make to that subsection. Objection is taken to the suggestion that the nuisance or annoyance to members of the public does not have take place in the locality that is to be designated as an alcohol disorder zone and that an area may be so designated if the nuisance is ““near that locality””. I cannot see the point of designating one part of the community as an alcohol disorder zone on the basis of what has happened in another part of the community. So why use the words ““or near”” in the legislation? Either one deals with the issue that arises within a particular locality or one does not. I cannot see why the licensees in one part of the town should pay charges to the local authority for nuisance and annoyance which have not occurred in that locality but somewhere else. I should like an explanation for the drafting of subsection (1)(a). That is why Amendment No. 77 suggests that the words ““or near”” be left out. The Bill creates many powers to deal with disorder that arises through the use of licensed premises. We suggest that the local authority should be satisfied before it goes through the procedure of making the order that every effort has been made to enforce the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003. That is the reason for Amendment No. 78. I hope the Minister will take these proposed amendments as an attempt to be constructive and that these disorder zones will be instituted only as a measure of last resort. I beg to move.