Violent Crime Reduction Bill

The noble Baroness is right that our discussion on alcohol disorder zones has fleshed out some important elements. It is right that we should take the time between now and Report to reflect on some of those points. What I have liked about our debates today is that they have been pragmatic and practically focused, because that is the intention behind the legislation. I am grateful for the approach that has been adopted by both opposition Benches on this range of issues. I shall deal with the amendments in turn. The noble Lord’s first two amendments—although I know that he said that he was not too bothered about Amendment No. 76—focus on the first test, which establishes the link between the consumption of alcohol and the level of proof that is required to establish that the criteria for designation have been satisfied. On the general test—and I repeat the point that I have been making all evening—alcohol disorder zones are an intervention of the last resort. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, recognises and understands that; he took us carefully through the process by which we arrive at the point at which local authorities or the police might want to seek to have an alcohol disorder zone put in place. We want to make it clear that it is the end of a process to try to foster and encourage that sense of collective responsibility to which I have referred. We want the power to be used as flexibly as possible. The Bill provides the overall framework. Clause 16 provides for guidance to be issued on the administration of alcohol disorder zones. Subsection (2) places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the guidance sets out the alternative steps that should be taken prior to proposing an alcohol disorder zone. Subsection (4) places a duty on local authorities to follow the guidance. I envisage that the guidance will set out in clear terms the alternative interventions to deal with alcohol-related crime and disorder, including tackling those incidents that are not persistent—although the fact that incidents are persistent is one of the things that will cause the local authority and the police, acting together, to consider moving towards an alcohol disorder zone. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, we would not see a single incident as the trigger for such an approach—although one incident might highlight a generality of problems. We do not need the reference to ““persistent and repeated”” for which the first amendment provides. The second amendment relates to establishing a link to the levels of crime or disorder required to trigger an alcohol disorder zone. We would not want to lose the general link with the consumption of alcohol in the locality. The policy that we have adopted in our approach is about securing collective responsibility for the problem across the alcohol trade locally, in both the off-licence trade and the on-licence trade. We have to accept that it is often not possible to establish a clear audit trail for the problem in the public space back to individual premises. Again, I do not see the need to lose the link between disorder, anti-social behaviour and alcohol. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his first two amendments. Amendment No. 77 provoked a discussion about locality. The noble Lord seeks to require that the levels of nuisance and annoyance to members of the public that are included as criteria for the designation of the locality occur precisely in the locality. He is concerned that such activities and incidents of nuisance and annoyance should occur in that locality, rather than somewhere adjacent to it. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment and I can reassure the noble Lord that the zone is to be used where the nuisance and annoyance to the public are most likely to be repeated. Where that is the case, the area will be within the designated zone. The key issue is displacement. Problems caused in licensed premises in one area may manifest themselves much more clearly in an adjacent area. I have in my mind an image of a parade of shops or perhaps even a whole street, and within that street are a number of different premises—off-licences, public houses, clubs and bars and so on. In some places, it is likely that the incidents which cause the nuisance will take place a little way from where the alcohol is purchased and in a place where the alcohol is consumed.