Violent Crime Reduction Bill

The amendment would add to Clause 13(2) a specific duty on local authorities and chief officers to have regard to representations received during the 28-day consultation period on a proposal to designate an area as an alcohol disorder zone. It is obviously important that there is meaningful consultation and that the local authority and police make proper and full use of this. It is an opportunity to test their proposal to designate, including the proposed content of the action plan and the steps proposed to be taken under the compulsory charging regime. I certainly support the intention of the amendment but my question is this: do we need the specific duty outlined in the amendment on the face of the Bill? We do not think that we do. I heard what the noble Baroness said about the Courts Act 2003 and I certainly recall some of those debates. It is obviously in everyone’s interest that consultations are meaningful—whatever that means in itself—but the real prize here, in our view, is that we need an effective action plan that seeks to reduce the risk of crime and disorder occurring, not the compulsory charge. The action plan can be delivered only on the back of effective consultation and if the people involved feel that they own the action proposed and can see the purpose of it. No doubt many of the propositions within the action plans will come from those who were consulted. Of course, as I have explained on a number of occasions, regulations and guidance will offer a template to ensure that the consultation process can best achieve this. As we have pointed out, we will be setting out the arrangements in both guidance and regulations. It is likely that these will reinforce the existing public law duty on the police and local authorities to consider representations. So it will be contained within the regulations and the guidance. This is what happens in relation to proposals to make designated public place orders, which I think we can fairly argue have worked well—certainly within my knowledge. The noble Baroness may have some experience of designated public place orders as well. I remind Members of the Committee that if the government amendments on process are accepted, the regulations to be made on alcohol disorder zones will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and will therefore have to receive the more considered scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that with that reassurance and my clear steer that we are expecting the process to be not completely dissimilar to the designated public places orders, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.