Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I will certainly want to consider carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has said, but my immediate reaction is that I would be very unhappy with his interpretation being part of the Bill, as it would take collective responsibility to a level that I had not interpreted it to mean. I would be grateful if the Minister could, when he comes to respond, explain to us whether the view of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is the view of the Government. It may be that the Box can assist with that. The noble Lord has raised an interesting explanation of why ““or near”” might be valuable, but we will need to look at whether it really would be of value and be acceptable. I genuinely find it interesting. The issue was not raised in another place, and we will need to look at it. Amendment No. 75 has value, because it would ensure that the problems that one wishes to address are not just a one-off event. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has said, the measure will not be triggered by a single incident. I had always assumed that the Government were trying to avoid having an alcohol disorder zone imposed as a result of a single incident. If so, why are they worrying about having an action plan and consultation? To me, this would present the case that the Government are trying to do all they can to avoid having an alcohol disorder zone imposed. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is right: one needs to make sure that the opportunity for designation after a single incident is excluded. He has performed a valuable service. The noble Lord is also right to draw attention to the drafting of Clause 13. Paragraph (b) talks about ““nuisance, annoyance or disorder””. I find myself very uncomfortable with the use of the word ““annoyance””. That is a very low-level test, even if it is connected with alcohol consumption in the locality. It could obviously constitute something relatively trivial, like one of the usual bits of annoyance in any area: someone parking outside your premises, for example. It is on a public highway, but you do not like them doing it. Such behaviour tends to create quite a lot of antagonism, particularly if people do it on more than one occasion—it might be a persistent and repeated activity. Whether something like that, even if it is a persistent and repeated annoyance, should come within the provisions of Clause 13, I remain to be persuaded. I will be interested to hear how the Minister responds to that. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has raised issues that we will need to consider between now and Report. I have arranged to meet representatives of the licensed trade between now and Report to see what their general response is. We are already teasing out some particular issues that will need probing, rather than resolution on Report.