Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 101:"Page 14, line 22, after ““certificates;”” insert—" ““(   )   business associations that he considers represent the particular interests of ethnic minorities;”” The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 102. We return to the consultation process. Clause 16 deals with guidance about how local authorities and the police should exercise their powers and duties in relation to the alcohol disorder zones. It is an important clause, because the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under the duties set out in subsection (1) can relate to any part of Chapter 2 of the Bill. Subsection (3) lists those whom the Secretary of State must consult. It is rather a vague list because it does not state the name of an organisation. It says that there are persons whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of various groups. So paragraphs (a) to (e) cover various groups, but we do not know who will be approached, and then paragraph (f) is the catch-all for anybody else the Secretary of State thinks is the right person to approach. That kind of flexibility can be extremely useful, but we need to ensure that those with a relevant interest will be consulted. The list covers representatives from local authorities, the police, the licensed trade and holders of club premises certificates. The amendments I have tabled make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to consult business associations that represent ethnic minorities. The reason for my amendments is that it has been brought to my attention that certain ethnic minority communities within the United Kingdom contain a higher number of licensed businesses per capita than the national average. Therefore, any measures that affect licensed businesses may have a greater effect on those communities than they would on British society as a whole. I am told that those who run such businesses might have further problems, perhaps in understanding new legislation, simply because they do not go to every government website and look up the relevant legislation—which of us really does? So how does one find out? The particular example I have been given is of the Chinese community. This will not come as a surprise to the Minister because he took part in our debates earlier this year on the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill. He will recall that a very powerful speech at Second Reading by Lord Chan made noble Lords from across the House more aware of the emerging participation in democracy by the Chinese community, particularly in north London, as it worked together with other communities, including the Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities. I am told that there is concern that the powers contained in Chapter 2 could impose an unnecessary and disproportionate burden on restaurants and takeaways with no history of problems with customers who drink too much alcohol. There is a perception that the Government need to take extra steps to consult representatives of this community and other ethnic minorities who might feel more at risk of not having their views taken into account in any consultation. I am aware that in a Written Answer in another place the Government sought to give an assurance that restaurants would not necessarily be covered. Clause 12 contains powers to ensure that certain businesses are excluded from the extra charge. It is the vagueness of that which has alarmed some communities. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the guidance issued to local authorities and the police will include suggestions on how they should go about the consultation process to ensure they reach the views of those ethnic communities. The other groups that it has been suggested to me should be consulted include representatives of residents, victims of crime and club members. Those are not covered in paragraphs (a) to (e) although I realise that the Minister may say that they fall under the catch-all paragraph (f). I would find it very helpful if he could give that assurance. I beg to move.