Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I understand the concerns that have prompted the amendment, and I must say that I rather liked the way the noble Baroness introduced it, saying that it is an ““amendment sponsored by””. But I would argue that we do not think it necessary to include this provision. The amendment would require the local authority to review the appropriateness of the action plan in consultation with concerned parties four weeks after the publication of the plan. The Bill provides that if the action plan is not implemented within eight weeks or it is evident that it will not be implemented before the eight-week point, the local authority can designate the locality as an alcohol disorder zone. If that is the case, in our view there would be no need to review the appropriateness of the action plan, as it would simply not have been put into effect. If the action plan has been implemented and is not having any effect on the level of crime and disorder in the locality, the local authority and the police would be absolutely right to review the plan and not proceed to designation. The noble Baroness has put her finger on the issue in noting that this process must be collaborative. These plans need to be carefully spelt out and there must be proper timeframes within which matters can be considered; it is in that spirit that we want to see ADZs operate. Further, as I explained during our first day in Committee, we see ADZs as a solution of last resort. We hope that all the other measures taken before reaching the ADZ process will have dealt with many of the problems collaboratively, because that is the best way of sorting out these difficulties when they arise in our towns and cities. With that response, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.