Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 84:"Page 12, line 20, at end insert—" ““(4B) The local authority must have regard to any representations received when preparing the action plan referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (4).”” The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 85, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 95. These amendments probe the extent to which information about alcohol disorder zones—I beg the pardon of the House. In trying to be quick, I have missed out the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 84. I am grateful to the Deputy Chairman for guiding me back to the right amendment. Perhaps the House would have been grateful if I had missed out a grouping, that of Amendment No. 84; certainly the Bill team look as if they might have been. We have already looked at the issue of when the action plan is to be published, but I turn now to the purpose of the consultation phase. I have teased out separate groups to address the issue of consultation because the amendments refer to different questions and different groups of people as they are affected. Clause 13(3) states that the notice setting out the proposal to designate a locality must require representations to be made within 28 days after the publication of the notice. The problem is that nothing in Clause 13 states that those representations must then be taken into account. It is a case of, ““Tell us what you want, but we will not bother to do anything about it””. I am sure the Minister will say, ““Gosh, we would not dream of that happening; that could not possibly be the outcome””—but it seems an odd way of drafting the legislation. I recall that some while back, when we were dealing with the Courts Act 2003, we made points on the same basis. The Government looked favourably on us and found a form of words to reassure those who were going to be consulted that their representations would be taken into account. I am not saying that my amendment is beautifully drafted but I hope that it proposes a way forward. The amendment would make it a requirement that a local authority must listen to and take account of the views of those who may have to pay these extra charges after an alcohol disorder zone is designated. It is not a particularly onerous duty but it could give some comfort to the licensed trade that whatever representations it makes will not be in vain. It would not, of course, require the local authority to act upon any representations so made. The representations could relate to the size of the alcohol disorder zone or they could suggest improvements or alterations to any draft action plan. I beg to move.