Violent Crime Reduction Bill

As ever, I am grateful to the Minister. I know that he always intends to be helpful, but I still feel as though I am treading in treacle with regard to much of this Bill. I listened to the Minister’s response to Amendment No. 88, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but I am coming to the issue from a slightly different angle. Therefore, it is still relevant that I should move Amendment No. 89 when we reach that stage. The amendments to which I have spoken were all intended to be probing. I accept of course what the Minister says. The Government expect that the system cannot operate if guidance is not in place before the police and the local authority go forward and start to designate an area and approve action plans. As I know from businesses that will be hit by the extra charges, there is a considerable degree of concern about the lack of knowledge on how local authorities will designate an alcohol disorder zone, which reflects back to our debates on Clause 12 on which businesses will be affected. That concern will continue when we come to other amendments about consultation. Although I understand what the Minister says—of course, the Government do not expect this to work unless there is guidance—the trouble is that we need to be able to tease out what the Government anticipate will be the way that local authorities proceed to designate. Unless we do that, we cannot expect those businesses that are currently very concerned to have those concerns dealt with. As I say, I am treading in treacle. I will try to pull my feet and the Minister’s feet out when we get to Report. I am having meetings with the licensing trade as we complete the Committee stage. I will see how we can perhaps take away the very vague amendments in this group and provide something a bit more punchy. As ever, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 81 not moved.]