Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Clause 16 provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the relevant parties on the exercise of their powers in relation to alcohol disorder zones. The Bill specifies those interested parties whom the Secretary of State must consult before issuing or revising this guidance. There is always a bit of a problem with lists. Lists, particularly this one, cannot always be exhaustive. However, it includes the main players and provides for others to be consulted as is seen fit. So there is a ““core”” list, if you like, and the added bonus of being flexible about who is included. The noble Baroness’s amendment, as she has explained very carefully, would specify additional interested persons to be consulted. She has spelt out who they are. They would represent ethnic minority businesses, victims of crime, local residents, consumers and club members. We have no difficulties with that list. We welcome the intention behind the amendments. It is important that we consult as widely as possible with those who might have an interest in the policy and how it is administered. I agree that the interests highlighted are very important, for the reasons that the noble Baroness explained and for one about which we agreed earlier: that groups could feel excluded by how issues are communicated. It is very important that people are included and feel involved in the process. We want to ensure that the consultation takes positive account of them. The question is: do we need to amend the Bill to ensure that that happens? I think not. As I said, the list of interest groups in Clause 16(3) is not intended to be exhaustive. We provide for the Secretary of State to consult other persons, with the degree of flexibility for which I have argued. We do not think that it is necessary to add to the interest groups already listed, simply because the list could become endless. However, I undertake to ensure that the draft guidance is placed on the Home Office website, thereby allowing persons representing the interests listed in the amendments to comment on the guidance. Although websites are not always accessible to all, it is a fact of life that they are becoming increasingly popular. The number of hits, even on Home Office websites, runs into millions. I hope that the noble Baroness will be happy with that undertaking. I leave as a thought that we need to ensure that we are proactive rather than passive in our consultation, so that we go out to seek views. I am sure that when it comes to drafting the guidance, proactivity on our part will reap a dividend in including the comments, views and thoughts of those groups, especially ethnic minority businesses, which do not always feel that they have a fair say or a fair crack when they are consulted on matters of importance to them.