Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 80:"Page 12, line 4, at end insert—" ““(2A) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the contents of any proposals to be made under subsection (2).”” The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 80, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 81, 83 and 90 standing in my name. I note that Amendment No. 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is also in the group; it looks as though the noble Lord, Lord Addington, may speak to it. I will not comment at this stage on Amendment No. 88; at first blush it looks as though it may be a matter that I had intended to cover by Amendment No. 89, which is separate. I will wait with bated breath to hear what issue the noble Lord, Lord Addington, may propose. We ended our debates on the first day in Committee some three weeks ago by launching into the part of the Bill that sets out how alcohol disorder zones will be set up. Local authorities are being given a new power to designate a locality as an alcohol disorder zone where there is a perceived problem of alcohol-related disorder or a nuisance. Local authorities will have power to impose extra charges on those who hold licences to sell alcohol by retail and on those who hold a club premises licence where alcohol is sold to members and their guests. Charges would be imposed if licensed premises and clubs did not implement an action plan designed to address the problem. In our previous debates, we heard that there is considerable concern among those who hold licences that they may be unfairly penalised. So much is left to regulation that it is uncertain which retailers will be subject to charges. Clause 13 gives local authorities the power to designate a locality within its area as an alcohol disorder zone, if the conditions set out in Clause 3(1) are met. If the local authority decides that it will designate an area, Clause 13(2) states that it must publish a notice setting out its proposals and invite representations to be made within 28 days about both the proposal itself and what might be included in the action plan to tackle the perceived problem. Amendment No. 80 would impose an obligation on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the contents of any proposals to designate a locality. Amendment No. 90 is the stick that goes with that, because it would ensure that the provisions of Clause 13 could not come into force unless and until guidance and regulations had been published. We would expect such guidance or regulations to include a requirement that those businesses that would have to pay any charges imposed by an alcohol disorder zone be notified individually. Last October, the Government indicated in another place that such guidance would indeed be forthcoming. We have still not had sight of it. Will the Minister today tell the Committee when the regulations and guidance will be produced? In particular, can he assure us that the House will be able to consider a draft of the guidance before Report? Amendment No. 83 would require the Secretary of State to specify a maximum number of days within which a draft action plan should be published. The purpose of that amendment is to ensure that all parties are aware of the timeframe within which an action plan should be produced. It would also ensure that local authorities do not delay the drafting of any action plan. It would thus be a more efficient way to approach the designation process. Although I recognise that this is a relatively minor point of detail, it seems reasonable to suggest a timeframe to the local authority, as that will ensure that things do not drift. If there is an alcohol disorder problem that needs to be addressed, it is surely preferable that those who are responsible know what they have to do about it sooner rather than later. As we shall discuss under a later amendment, they should then be allowed proper time to put that action plan into effect. I beg to move.