The noble Lord raises some important issues. Of course, one would not expect the licensees to contribute through the alcohol disorder zone to policing another far-away part of the town. But one might expect the charges raised as a result of the alcohol disorder zone to contribute towards the cost of extra policing in a street or open space close by. Or one might expect licensees, for example, to help through the alcohol disorder zone fund to pay for taxi marshals in an adjacent street or on part of the main streets close to where the licensed premises are located. I think that that is a reasonable expectation of what an alcohol disorder zone charging regime would contribute towards.
The local authority will want to consider very carefully—no doubt it will be part of detailed considerations and consultations locally—designating a zone which is very tightly drawn and which includes the area where the nuisance is most likely to be repeated. That is how we see it working as a matter of practical application.
Amendment No. 78 deals with other measures that should be properly considered before getting to the point at which an alcohol disorder zone is identified as the appropriate remedy. The noble Lord referred to the Licensing Act 2003, and said that those provisions should be fully used to ensure that individual premises have appropriate operating schedules to deal with potential problems.
I agree in general with that approach. The guidance to the provision will set out explicitly that alcohol disorder zones are a measure of last resort, and the circumstances in which they should be used. As an example, where there is a problem with individual premises, of course it would be more sensible to use a licence review against those premises than to declare it an alcohol disorder zone. As I said, alcohol disorder zones are about getting licensees to adopt collective responsibility. The Licensing Act 2003 greatly strengthens local authorities’ hands against individual premises, and the alcohol disorders zones policy adds to that and provides them with a valuable tool to establish that collective responsibility as a matter of principle.
I do not think that the noble Lord’s amendments are necessary, nor do they add a further layer of clarification, which we can fairly say is already there in the Bill, and will be there as a product of the regulations and guidance that we shall consult on later in the process. I understand the sentiments but our approach makes more sense. I hope that my comments have also satisfied some of the concerns about the way in which the scheme will be constructed.
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 c248 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:52:51 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317665
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317665
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_317665